4-303-775 (1998). LAURIE ADAMS.

• Case Date: July 06, 1998
• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 1998. 4-303-775 (1998). LAURIE ADAMS INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF LAURIE ADAMS, Claimant, v. COLORADO DENVER MISSION, Employer, and LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY CO. Insurer, Respondents.W. C. No. 4-303-775FINAL ORDER The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Atencio (ALJ) which determined that the claimant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, and denied the request for temporary total disability benefits. We affirm. The claimant worked for the employer as a custodian, and from time to time was required to operate a rug shampooing machine. The ALJ found that the claimant was required to clean the very dirty areas of the carpets by scrubbing them on her hands and knees. The claimant testified that as a result of these activities she injured her back and knees. However, the ALJ found that the claimant was separated from the employment due to "personal problems" between the claimant and her supervisor, and that the claimant did not inform the supervisor at that time that she had been injured. Further, the ALJ found that the claimant continued in other employment, umpiring at softball games. Consequently, the ALJ discredited the claimant's testimony that she injured her back and knees while cleaning carpets. The ALJ also found that the claimant was examined by Dr. Christopher B. Ryan for bilateral knee complaints. However, the ALJ found, Dr. Ryan imposed no activity restrictions, including work restrictions, based on these complaints. Under these circumstances, the ALJ was not persuaded that the claimant sustained an industrial injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. Accordingly, the ALJ denied the claimant's claim for temporary total disability benefits. On appeal, the claimant argues, inter alia, that the ALJ erred in determining that the claimant did not sustain an industrial injury. We disagree. Whether the claimant has suffered an industrial injury, and whether the injury is the cause of the claimant's need for treatment, are questions of fact to be determined by the ALJ. See F. R. Orr Construction v. Rinta, 717 P.2d 965 (Colo. App. 1985). Further, we must uphold the ALJ's findings if supported by substantial evidence in the record. See § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 1997; F. R. Orr...