Eisnach v. Ind. Comm

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Fontecch, W.C. No

    W.C. No. 4-376-276 (Colo. Ind. App. Jul. 28, 2003)

    The question of whether the claimant met the burden to prove the worsening of condition caused additional temporary impairment of her earning capacity, which would entitle her to TPD benefits under the formula established in ยง 8-42-106(1), was one of fact for determination by the ALJ. Lymburn v. Symbios Logic, supra; Eisnach v. Industrial Commission, 633 P.2d 502 (Colo.App. 1981); Lively v. Digital Equipment Corp., supra. Consequently, we must uphold the ALJ's determination if supported by substantial evidence in the record.

  2. In re Black, W.C. No

    W.C. No. 4-210-925 (Colo. Ind. App. Dec. 22, 1998)

    See Halliburton Services v. Miller, 720 P.2d 571 (Colo. 1986); Eisnach v. Industrial Commission, 633 P.2d 502 (Colo.App. 1981). The claimant is obviously dissatisfied with the ALJ's credibility determinations.

  3. In re Chapman, W.C. No

    W.C. No. 4-102-842 (Colo. Ind. App. Jan. 27, 1997)

    The question of whether the claimant sustained his burden of proof was a matter for resolution by the ALJ. Eisnach v. Industrial Commission, 633 P.2d 502 (Colo.App. 1981). Consequently, we must uphold the ALJ's determination if supported by substantial evidence in the record.