In Gebregeorgis, the claimant sustained an admitted injury when she was sweeping snow and fell on her outstretched left arm. The claimant sustained a left wrist fracture and injured her left shoulder. Dr. Lugliani ultimately placed the claimant at maximum medical improvement (MMI) and assigned a 7% scheduled rating for the claimant’s left wrist and an 8% scheduled rating for the claimant’s left shoulder. Combined, the impairment rating yielded a 14% left upper extremity impairment, which corresponds to an 8% whole person impairment.
Dr. Orent performed a virtual IME at the claimant’s request. Dr. Orent concluded that the claimant had a 16% impairment rating of the left wrist and a 21% impairment of the left shoulder, which resulted in a combined 34% upper extremity impairment. The 34% upper extremity impairment converted to a 20% whole person impairment. The ALJ did not find Dr. Orent’s opinion, credible or persuasive citing to the specific factors of the significant discrepancy between Dr. Orent’s assigned impairment rating and Dr. Lugliani’s impairment rating four months earlier and the fact that Dr. Orent did not personally conduct a physical examination.
The ALJ concluded that the claimant sustained two injuries as a result of the work accident: a left wrist fracture and a left shoulder injury, and neither party established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Dr. Lugliani’s assigned impairment ratings were incorrect. The ALJ, therefore, found Dr. Lugliani’s ratings to be the appropriate impairment ratings for both the left wrist and shoulder.
On appeal, the claimant contended that the ALJ abused his discretion in finding that Dr. Orent’s initial report and impairment evaluation of the claimant’s impairment rating should be discounted since Dr. Orent did not physically examine the claimant.
The Industrial Claim Appeals Office (the Panel) was not persuaded there was any reversible error in the ALJ’s order. Because the issue is factual in nature, the Panel must uphold the ALJ’s determination if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S.; Walker v. Jim Fuoco Motor Co. 942 P.2d 1390 (Colo. App. 1997). This standard of review requires the Panel to defer to the ALJ’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence, credibility determinations, and plausible inferences drawn from the record. Metro Moving and Storage Co. v.Gussert, 914 P.2d 411 (Colo. App. 1995). Further, an ALJ is not held to standard of absolute clarity in expressing findings of fact and conclusions of law so long as the basis of the order is apparent from those findings and conclusions which are entered. Magnetic Engineering, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 5 P.3d 385 (Colo. App. 2000).
The evidence supported the ALJ’s findings of fact. Those findings in turn, supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Lugliani’s shoulder rating should be converted to a whole person rating. The Panel found no basis to disturb the ALJ’s order on review. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S.
Gebregeorgis v ISS Facility Servs., W.C. No. 5-135-393-003 (I.C.A.O. Feb. 27, 2023).
Want to know more? Contact Shelby Scheider at sscheider@pollartmiller.com or 877-259-5693.
