4-410-953 (2001). Darlene Hart.

• Case Date: May 23, 2001
• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 2001. 4-410-953 (2001). Darlene Hart INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF DARLENE J. HART, Claimant, v. CENTURY COMMUNICATIONS, Employer, and SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurer, Respondents.W. C. No. 4-410-953FINAL ORDER The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Hopf (ALJ) which denied permanent partial disability benefits. We affirm. On January 5, 1999, the claimant suffered an admitted injury when she slipped on a slab of butter while walking across the employer's lunchroom. The claimant suffered a previous injury in May 1994 when she fell down a flight of stairs. As a result of the 1994 injury the claimant was diagnosed with a herniated disc at C4-5 and underwent three cervical fusion surgeries. An MRI in July 1994 showed no other herniation. In May 1995, the claimant was placed at MMI with 19 percent whole person impairment due to decreased cervical range of motion, neck pain, arm pain and headaches. The claimant was reinjured in December 1998, when she fell at home. On May 19, 1999, Dr. Ogrodnick diagnosed "chronic cervical myofascial pain," placed the claimant at maximum medical improvement (MMI), and assigned zero impairment rating to the January 5 industrial injury. Dr. Ridings performed a Division-sponsored independent medical examination (DIME) under the provisions of § 8-42-107(8)(c), C.R.S. 2000. In a report dated August 18, 1999, Dr Ridings "apportioned" all of the claimant's symptoms to prior injuries. Therefore, Dr. Ridings assigned a zero impairment rating for the January 5 injury. The ALJ found the DIME physician's zero impairment rating was an opinion on "causation" not "apportionment." Furthermore, the ALJ determined the claimant failed to overcome the DIME physician's opinions on "causation" by "clear and convincing evidence." Therefore, the ALJ denied permanent partial disability benefits. On review the claimant argues issue of "causation" was not in dispute because the respondents admitted the January 5 injury was compensable. Under these circumstances, the claimant contends the ALJ erroneously interpreted the DIME physician's report as one of "causation" not "apportionment." Furthermore, the claimant contends the DIME physician did not properly apportion impairment under Rule XIX, 7 Code Colo. Reg. 1101-7. Therefore, the...