In Starken, in May 2022, the claimant was working as a heavy equipment operator at a mine when an excavator operator dropped dirt and rocks into the bed of the claimant’s large haul truck. The claimant asserted that the force of the rocks dropping in to the truck bed caused the truck to shake, shattering the windshield and “jostl[ing] him around.” At the hospital, the claimant reported back pain, though he had no weakness in his legs and showed no signs of back trauma or an extremity injury in his physical exam.
An x-ray showed degenerative disc disease with no evidence of fracture. The claimant was also noted as being hypoxic, though the claimant declined the attending physician’s recommended supplemental oxygen. The claimant returned to the hospital two days later after having trouble breathing and was diagnosed with pneumonia, severe sepsis, and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The claimant’s chest x-ray showed pulmonary embolisms. The claimant developed retroperitoneal hematoma during his treatment. The claimant was discharged from inpatient rehabilitation with complaints of back pain, leg weakness, and neuropathic pain. Respondents denied the claim, and the claim proceeded to hearing.
At the hearing, the claimant testified that he felt the truck shake during one of the scoop loads from the excavator to his truck and felt back pain about thirty minutes later. The claimant also testified that the accident and the trauma with the accident caused his subsequent pneumonia, pulmonary embolisms, and hematoma. Respondents’ medical expert testified the medical records did not show any connection between the workplace injury and the claimant’s pneumonia and its associated complications. Respondents’ medical expert further testified that the claimant’s back pain did not stem from the workplace injury but rather from the hematoma, the claimant’s extended bed rest while hospitalized, minimal physical activity, and a series of falls.
Respondents also brought an accident reconstruction engineer and a human factors expert to testify regarding the mechanism of injury. The accident reconstruction engineer testified that the force of the impact, when factoring in the seat cushioning and truck’s suspension system, was adequately reduced such that no significant “jarring” of the truck occurred as the claimant reported. The human factors expert testified that the acceleration the claimant experienced due to the impact was well within the safe range of acceleration and deceleration experienced in every day, non-injurious activities of daily living.
Relying on the opinions of Respondents’ three experts, the ALJ found that no work-related mechanism of injury accounted for the claimant’s back condition and that the claimant failed to establish that it was more likely than not that his lower back injury was sustained during the alleged workplace incident. The ALJ found that the amount of force experienced during the incident was insufficient to cause a low back injury that would require medical treatment. The claimant appealed, arguing that there was not substantial evidence to sustain the ALJ’s decision.
The Industrial Claims Appeals Office (the Panel) affirmed the ALJ’s decision and agreed that there was substantial evidence in support of the ALJ’s ruling. The Panel was bound by the ALJ’s findings of fact given the substantial evidence in favor of Respondents.
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Panel’s decision. The court highlighted the substantial expert testimony provided by Respondents as part of the ALJ’s finding that Respondents’ evidence outweighed the claimant’s evidence. The claimant did not provide any credible lay or expert opinion(s) in support of finding that the alleged workplace incident caused his back pain, nor did he provide such evidence in support of finding that his pneumonia, sepsis, and associated symptoms would have developed in the workplace. As it is the claimant’s burden to demonstrate that his injury arose out of and in the course of employment, the court affirmed the Panel’s affirmation of the ALJ’s determination that the claimant did not meet his burden given the substantial evidence in favor of Respondents.
Starken v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, No. 24CA0612 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Want to know more? Contact Luke Peterson at [email protected]
