From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Eckert, W.C. No

Industrial Claim Appeals Office
Dec 10, 2002
W.C. No. 4-473-999 (Colo. Ind. App. Dec. 10, 2002)

Opinion

W.C. No. 4-473-999

December 10, 2002


FINAL ORDER

The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Jones (ALJ) which denied the claim for benefits. We affirm.

The ALJ found the claimant failed to prove that she sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. In so doing, the ALJ determined the claimant's testimony was not credible, and was contradicted by the credible testimony of other witnesses. Further, the ALJ resolved conflicts in the medical evidence and determined that the claimant's medical records are not consistent with the occurrence of the alleged injury.

The claimant filed a petition to review containing only general allegations of error regarding the sufficiency of the findings and the evidence. The claimant failed to file a brief in support of the petition. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited.

The claimant had the burden of proof to establish that she sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. The question of whether the claimant met the burden of proof is one of fact for determination by the ALJ. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2002; Faulkner v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 12 P.3d 844 (Colo.App. 2000).

Because the issue is factual, we must uphold the ALJ's determination if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2002. This standard of review requires that we defer to the ALJ's resolution of conflicts in the evidence, credibility determinations, and plausible inferences drawn from the record. Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, __ P.3d __ (Colo.App. No. 01CA0852, February 28, 2002).

Here, we have reviewed the transcript and the record. The ALJ resolved the pertinent credibility issues and conflicts in the evidence, and concluded the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence. This finding represents a plausible interpretation of the evidence and may not be set aside on appeal.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ's order dated September 18, 2001, is affirmed.

INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL

________________________________ David Cain

________________________________ Robert M. Socolofsky

NOTICE

This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate this Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, by filing a petition for review with the Court, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to § 8-43-301(10) and § 8-43-307, C.R.S. 2002. The appealing party must serve a copy of the petition upon all other parties, including the Industrial Claim Appeals Office, which may be served by mail at 1515 Arapahoe Street, Tower 3, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202.

Copies of this decision were mailed December 10, 2002 to the following parties:

Annette Eckert, 10824 W. 100th Dr., Westminster, CO 80021

Jim Zechman, Cameron Barkley, 3255 N.E. Spring St., Minneapolis, MN 55413

Greg Gregory, Cameron Barkley, 4895 E. 41st Ave., Denver, CO 80216

Amy Nelson, Royal SunAlliance, 9800 S. Meridian Blvd., Englewood, CO 80122

Richard K. Blundell, Esq., 1020 9th St., Greeley, CO 80631 (For Claimant)

Joel M. Pollack, Esq., 999 18th St., #3100, Denver, CO 80202 (For Respondents)

By: A. Hurtado


Summaries of

In re Eckert, W.C. No

Industrial Claim Appeals Office
Dec 10, 2002
W.C. No. 4-473-999 (Colo. Ind. App. Dec. 10, 2002)
Case details for

In re Eckert, W.C. No

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF ANNETTE ECKERT, Claimant, v. CAMERON…

Court:Industrial Claim Appeals Office

Date published: Dec 10, 2002

Citations

W.C. No. 4-473-999 (Colo. Ind. App. Dec. 10, 2002)

Citing Cases

McCaslin v. Willis

" There is contained an annotation under the case of Dencer, Executrix, v. Jory, 131 Or. 653, 284 P. 163,…

Persky v. Bank of America National Assn

Well-reasoned authorities held that, even where a maker of a note had reacquired it and reissued it prior to…