4-543-782 (2004). EDITH ARAGON.
|Case Date:||September 24, 2004|
Colorado Workers Compensation 2004. 4-543-782 (2004). EDITH ARAGON INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF EDITH ARAGON, Claimant, v. CHIMR d/b/a PENROSE ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, and/or GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF COLORADO SPRINGS, and/or MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Employers, and PREFERRED PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and/or NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY and/or SELF-INSURED, Insurers, Respondents.W. C. Nos. 4-543-782, 5-465-295; 4-581-659FINAL ORDER The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Mattoon (ALJ) which determined the claimant failed to prove a compensable injury and therefore, denied the claim for workers' compensation benefits. We affirm. The claimant was employed as a housekeeper at the Penrose St. Francis Hospital (Penrose) on November 9, 2000 when she was struck by a bed she was moving. The claimant testified she heard a "pop" in her back and felt pain radiating into her left leg. (May 6, 2003, p. 17). The claimant reported the injury but did not request treatment throughout the remainder of her employment at Penrose. In explanation, the claimant stated that she was afraid Penrose would discharge her if it knew she had been injured and wanted medical treatment. (Tr. October 7, 2003, p. 51). On April 4, 2001, the claimant voluntarily quit her employment at Penrose for reasons unrelated to the November 9 incident. On January 11, 2002, the claimant was hired by Goodwill Industries of Colorado Springs (Goodwill) and assigned to a housekeeping position at Memorial Hospital (Memorial). The claimant alleged she developed an occupational disease affecting her low back condition while working for Goodwill. However, the claimant performed her regular duties at Goodwill without complaint and applied for permanent employment at Memorial. The claimant also alleged she reinjured her back while lifting 50 pounds during a pre-employment physical at Memorial on April 4, 2002. In May 2002, the claimant filed these claims for workers' compensation benefits. The claimant then sought medical treatment for complaints of low back pain on June 11, 2002. Dr. Schwender and Dr. Jenks opined the claimant's low back condition was not caused by the November 9 incident. In contrast, Dr. Hall and Dr. Griffis opined the claimant's low back complaints are a consequence of the November 9 incident, which was not...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP