Riddle v. Ampex Corporation

262 Citing cases

  1. In re Harris, W.C. No

    W.C. No. 4-323-225 (Colo. Ind. App. Nov. 29, 1999)

    Therefore, the ALJ's order is sufficient to permit appellate review and the matter need not be remanded for additional findings. See § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 1999; Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992). The claimant suffered a compensable injury on September 28, 1993, which was originally diagnosed as a left shoulder injury. The injury temporarily precluded the claimant from performing his regular job duties.

  2. Magnetic Engineering, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

    5 P.3d 385 (Colo. App. 2000)   Cited 541 times
    Noting that a DIME doctor's opinion "has presumptive effect"

    We are not so persuaded. Initially, we note that the ALJ is not held to a crystalline standard in articulating his findings of fact, Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992), and we are able to discern from the order the reasoning which underlies the award of TTD benefits for the period prior to the IME. We also agree with the Panel that the report of the IME physician is subject to conflicting inferences concerning the claimant's MMI status prior to the IME on April 16, 1997.

  3. Bestway Concrete v. Industrial Claim

    984 P.2d 680 (Colo. App. 1999)   Cited 190 times
    In Bestway Concrete the court rejected the argument that an attending physician's opinion could not override that of another physician where the former was issued "long after" the original release to work.

    No other conclusion can be drawn from these findings except that claimant's discharge occurred, at least in part, because of his previous injury, and that the injury contributed to his later wage loss. Thus, we are satisfied that the ALJ's findings sufficiently indicated the basis of his order, see Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992), and that no remand is necessary. In light of the evidence in the record, therefore, we hold that the award of TTD benefits for the period after claimant's discharge must be upheld.

  4. Trujillo v. the Industrial Claim

    957 P.2d 1052 (Colo. App. 1998)   Cited 8 times

    Most stress claims involve one specific source for the stress and, therefore, entail analysis of only a single stressor. See General Cable Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, supra (three-year sexual relationship with supervisor); Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992) (ban on cigarette smoking); Peterson v. ENT Federal Credit Union, 827 P.2d 621 (Colo.App. 1992) (job rotation); Holme, Roberts Owen v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 800 P.2d 1332 (Colo.App. 1990) (demotion); City Market, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 800 P.2d 1335 (Colo.App. 1990) (effect of supervisor's sexual advances); White Star Linen Rental v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 787 P.2d 189 (Colo.App. 1989) (encounter with armed assailant). However, 8-41-301(2) applies to multiple traumatic events, as well as a single traumatic event.

  5. Walker v. Jim Fuoco Motor Company

    942 P.2d 1390 (Colo. App. 1997)   Cited 56 times
    Upholding ALJ's finding that the claimant failed to prove entitlement to PPD benefits calculated based on a whole person impairment rating because finding was supported by substantial evidence

    Accordingly, this finding is sufficient to permit our review. See Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992) (ALJ is not held to crystalline standard in articulating administrative order). III.

  6. Christie v. Coors Transp. Co.

    919 P.2d 857 (Colo. App. 1995)   Cited 69 times

    Since the basis of this order is clear, it must be upheld. See Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992). II.

  7. General Cable Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

    878 P.2d 118 (Colo. App. 1994)   Cited 177 times

    Martinez v. Regional Transportation District, supra. The ALJ is required to make specific findings only as to the evidence found persuasive and determinative. Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992). There is no obligation to address every issue raised or that evidence which the ALJ considers to be unpersuasive. Crandall v. Watson-Wilson Transportation System, Inc., 171 Colo. 329, 467 P.2d 48 (1970).

  8. In the Matter of the Claim of Maturin, W.C. No

    W.C. No. 4-781-078 (Colo. Ind. App. Apr. 15, 2010)

    The findings are sufficient to permit appellate review and the ALJ resolved conflicts in the evidence based upon his credibility determinations. See Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo. App. 1992). Although there was conflicting evidence produced at the hearing, the findings are amply supported by substantial evidence.

  9. MTR of Claim of Redman v. R.K. Mechanica, W.C. No

    W.C. No. 4-774-831 (Colo. Ind. App. Jan. 19, 2010)

    The ALJ's findings of fact are sufficient to permit appellate review and the ALJ resolved conflicts in the evidence based upon his credibility determinations. See Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo. App. 1992). Although there was conflicting evidence produced at the hearing, the findings are amply supported by substantial evidence.

  10. Matter of Claim of Carton v. Transwest, W.C. No

    W.C. No. 4-783-232 (Colo. Ind. App. Dec. 28, 2009)

    The findings are sufficient to permit appellate review and the ALJ resolved conflicts in the evidence based upon his credibility determinations. See Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo. App. 1992). The findings support the conclusion that the claimant failed to prove entitlement to benefits.