 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cooper v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office3/18/1999
ORDER AFFIRMED
Division I
Metzger, J., concurs Taubman, J., Dissents
Charla Cooper (claimant) seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) denying her request for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from Sunny Acres Villa, Inc. (employer). We affirm.
While working for employer in 1992, claimant hit her head, hip, and extremities as she slipped and fell. When she reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) in June 1993, her authorized treating physician rated her impairment at 5% of the whole person. Her temporary disability benefits were then discontinued.
Claimant's condition subsequently worsened, prompting the first Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to this case to order the resumption of temporary disability benefits. The ALJ credited the opinions of a psychologist, psychiatrist, and audiologist that claimant's condition was work-related, and specifically discredited the contrary opinion of two other physicians, including one who had performed the first independent medical examination (IME). Based on this evidence, the ALJ concluded that claimant had suffered a closed head injury during the industrial accident, causing her to develop disabling psychological problems.
Claimant received temporary total disability (TTD) benefits until March 1996, when she reached MMI from the worsened condition. After she applied for a hearing on permanent total disability (PTD), a division-sponsored IME was performed. This second IME physician opined that claimant's psychological impairment was 60% of the whole person, but that such impairment was caused not by the industrial injury, but by pre-existing conditions. Two other physicians agreed that the industrial injury was not a causative factor.
After a hearing on PTD, a second ALJ assigned to the case made findings in which he set forth the conflicting opinions of some ten medical providers. Some of those providers had opined that claimant's condition was work-related, while others, including the second IME physician and the two Concurring physicians, had offered differing opinions. The ALJ specifically credited only these latter three opinions, and implicitly rejected all the other opinions.
Based on the three opinions found persuasive, the ALJ denied the claim for PTD benefits because claimant had failed to prove that the industrial injury was a significant factor in the alleged disability. The Panel affirmed.
I.
Claimant contends that, because the first ALJ had specifically rejected the medical opinion of the first IME physician as incredible and unpersuasive, the second ALJ erred in reconsidering and "adopting" that physician's opinion. We perceive no error.
The second ALJ's order clearly delineates separate sections for findings of fact and Conclusions of law. In the findings, the ALJ "found" that the opinions of some physicians supported claimant's case and the opinions of others supported employer's. In other words, the ALJ merely set forth all the medical evidence in these findings, including the opinion of the first IME physician. No credibility determinations were made in the section setting forth the findings of fact.
However, very specific credibility determinations were made in the Conclusions of law, and the ALJ did not mention the first IME physician in this section. Thus, we find no basis for claimant's assertion that the second ALJ "adopted" the opinion of the first IME physician. Instead, the opinions of those physicians not specifically credited were implicitly rejected. Cf. Crandall v. Watson-Wilson Transportation System, Inc., 171 Colo. 329, 467 P.2d
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Colorado Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|