W.C. No. 4-644-943.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
December 30, 2005.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order dated October 6, 2005 of Administrative Law Judge Harr (ALJ) that denied and dismissed the claim for mental impairment benefits. We affirm.
A hearing was held at which the claimant sought to prove that he suffered from a compensable sleep disorder caused by stress from overwork. The ALJ construed the claim as one based upon mental impairment and therefore subject to § 8-41-301(2)(a), C.R.S. 2005, which provides that “[a] claim of mental impairment must be proven by evidence supported by the testimony of a licensed physician or psychologist.” Because the claimant failed to present expert testimony or a medical report in support of his claim, the ALJ granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss.
The claimant appealed the ALJ’s order. The claimant has not filed a brief in support of the petition to review, nor has he provided a transcript of the hearing. The petition to review generally contains only factual assertions regarding the sleep disorder allegedly caused by his working conditions, and does not identify specific errors allegedly committed by the ALJ. We have reviewed the record, however, and perceive no basis on which to disturb the ALJ’s order.
Section 8-41-301(2)(a) provides that “[a] claim of mental impairment must be proven by evidence supported by the testimony of a licensed physician or psychologist.” The “testimony” of such an expert may be either oral or written, and may include written reports, statements, notes, or other documents relevant to the claim for mental impairment. Colorado Department of Labor and Employment v. Esser, 30 P.3d 189 (Colo. 2001). However, evidence must be presented that includes expert testimony regarding those elements of the claim of mental impairment within the purview of a licensed physician’s or psychologist’s expertise. Davison v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 84 P.3d 1023 (Colo. 2004). The purpose of this requirement is to eliminate claims resulting from idiosyncratic responses to mild stress that would not produce significant distress in a reasonable employee. Tomsha v. City of Colorado Springs, 856 P.2d 13 (Colo.App. 1992).
In the present case it appears undisputed that the claimant failed to present the testimony of a licensed physician or psychologist in support of his claim based upon mental impairment. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in dismissing the claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated October 6, 2005, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Curt Kriksciun
____________________________________ Thomas Schrant
Shan B. Ziel, Westminster, CO Sherri Russell, Department of Human Services, Denver, CO Legal Department, Pinnacol Assurance-Interagency Mail T. Paul Krueger, II, Esq. and Douglas Stratton, Esq., Fort Collins, CO (For Respondent).