Opinion
W.C. No. 4-356-421
March 11, 1999.
FINAL ORDER
The respondents seek review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Henk (ALJ) which awarded the claimant medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits. The respondents argue that the record does not support the ALJ's finding that the claimant's disability and need for treatment are causally connected to the industrial injury. We affirm.
The ALJ found that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on July 11, 1997. The respondents admitted liability for the injury, but contend the admission is restricted to treatment of the claimant's left wrist.
On October 2, 1997, an MRI revealed that the claimant has herniated discs at the C5-6 and C6-7 levels. Surgery was recommended and the treating physician, Dr. Holmboe, removed the claimant from work on October 21, 1997. However, the respondents took the position that the claimant's need for surgery and disability were caused by incidents of domestic violence in March 1997 and October 1997, or by a fall which the claimant experienced on or about July 16, 1997.
The ALJ credited the testimony and reports of Dr. Holmboe and found that the need for surgery and disability are causally connected to the July 11 industrial injury. The ALJ noted that Dr. Holmboe was made aware of the incidents of domestic violence as well as the fall, but maintained his position that the industrial injury was the cause of the claimant's condition. Consequently, the ALJ ordered the respondents to pay for the surgery and to commence payment of temporary total disability benefits on October 21, 1997.
On review, the respondents dispute the ALJ's finding that the need for surgery and the temporary disability were caused by the July 11 industrial injury. The respondents cite circumstantial evidence suggesting a possible relationship between non-industrial injuries (domestic violence and the fall) and the claimant's condition. We find no error.
We do not dispute the respondents' legal argument that the claimant bears the burden of proof to establish a causal relationship between the industrial injury and her disability and need for treatment. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 1998; PDM Molding, Inc. v. Stanberg, 898 P.2d 542 (Colo. 1995); City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496 (Colo.App. 1997). The question of whether the claimant satisfied her burden of proof to establish causation is one of fact for determination by the ALJ. Eisnach v. Industrial Commission, 633 P.2d 502 (Colo.App. 1981).
Because the issue is factual in nature we must uphold the ALJ's order if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 1998. The substantial evidence test requires us to defer to the ALJ's resolution of conflicts in the evidence, her credibility determinations, and the plausible inferences she drew from the evidence. Metro Moving Storage Co. v. Gussert, 914 P.2d 411 (Colo.App. 1995). Although the claimant need not present expert medical evidence of causation, where such evidence is presented it is the ALJ's province to assess its weight and credibility. Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990). Further, if an expert's testimony contains an inconsistenty, the ALJ may resolve it by crediting part or none of the testimony. Colorado Springs Motors, Ltd. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 165 Colo. 504, 441 P.2d 21 (1968).
The respondents' argument notwithstanding, Dr. Holmboe's testimony provides ample support for the ALJ's finding that the claimant's need for surgery and disability commencing October 21, 1997, are causally connected to the July 11 industrial injury. As Dr. Holmboe pointed out, the claimant reported neck pain to her physician at the time of the injury and continued to be treated for neck pain thereafter. Further, neck pain was not directly associated with any of the incidents of domestic violence or the fall, and the disc herniations were diagnosed prior to the last incident of domestic violence. Finally, Dr. Holmboe was aware of the other potential causes for the claimant's condition, but he maintained that the industrial injury was the cause of the need for surgery and the disability. Insofar as Dr. Holmboe's testimony was subject to other interpretations, the ALJ resolved the inconsistencies in favor of the claimant.
We decline the respondents' invitation to substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ concerning the weight of the evidence or the inferences to be drawn therefrom. The mere fact that the evidence might have supported contrary findings and conclusions affords no basis for relief on appeal. City of Durango v. Dunagan, supra.
IT THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ's order dated July 31, 1998, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
________________________________ David Cain
________________________________ Bill Whitacre
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate the Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80203, by filing a petition to review with the court, with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date the Order was mailed, pursuant to §§ 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. 1998.
Copies of this decision were mailed March 11, 1999 the following parties:
Rita Pereyra, 3169 W. Virginia Ave., Denver, CO 80219
Tracy Roberts, Alumaguard Corporation, 2280 S. Lipan St., Denver, CO 80110
Beth Soule, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 13111 E. Briarwood Ave., #100, Englewood, CO 80112
Eric J. Pollart, Esq., 3773 Cherry Creek Drive North, #940 W, Denver, CO 80209 (For Claimant)
Jeanne M. Labuda, Esq., 1120 Lincoln St., #1606, Denver, CO 80203 (For Respondents)
BY: ______________