FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order dated October 13, 2005 of Administrative Law Judge Felter (ALJ) that denied claims for worker's compensation benefits arising out of the claimant's bilateral shoulder conditions. We affirm.
The ALJ's pertinent findings of fact are as follows. The claimant was employed by the employer as a school bus driver. On October 29, 2004, the claimant reported to his supervisor that he had suffered a specific injury to his left shoulder on the day before, when he had been driving fast and the bus suddenly jerked in one direction.
The claimant was sent to Dr. Kalevik where he gave a history that there was a loose steering wheel on the bus that moved around so severely that it jolted his shoulder. Dr. Kalevik noted that the claimant had a separation in the left shoulder of the type that typically results from a fall. The supervisor became concerned about the inconsistencies in the claimant's report of the injury and reviewed his time cards. The time cards demonstrated that the claimant had missed several days from work earlier in October, when he had called in on one occasion reporting that his hand hurt, and on another occasion reporting that his arm hurt He had also called in sick on two other days.
The supervisor had the bus checked for defects. The employer's mechanic found no evidence of any defect in the bus. The employer arranged for Dr. Kalevik to ride on the bus on a test drive. Dr. Kalevik prepared a report concluding that there was nothing about the bus or its operation that would be a mechanism for the injury of which the claimant complained. Dr. Kalevik released the claimant from treatment and indicated that the claimant suffered no permanent medical impairment. The ALJ found Dr. Kalevik's testimony with regard to the causal connection issue to be credible and highly persuasive.
The claimant sought treatment from his own physicians and underwent an MRI on March 30, 2005. The MRI report reflects a history from the claimant that he fell from a truck on his outstretched hand. The claimant consulted Dr. Parry who prepared a report containing a history from the claimant about the operation of the bus. The ALJ found this history was unsupported by the totality of the evidence and therefore found that Dr. Parry had relied upon an inaccurate history. The ALJ found that Dr. Parry's opinions were probably wrong since they were not supported by an accurate history.
The ALJ also found the testimony of the supervisor, employer's mechanic and driver-trainer was persuasive and credible. The ALJ determined that the persuasive evidence supported the finding that there was no defect in the operation of the bus. The ALJ found that the claimant's testimony was inconsistent with the totality of the evidence, and that his testimony was not persuasive or credible.
The ALJ concluded that the claimant's job activities as a school bus driver did not cause, aggravate, or accelerate any of his shoulder or back conditions. Therefore, the ALJ found the claimant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained a compensable work-related occupational disease or injury while working for the employer.
On review the claimant contends that the testimony of the supervisor, the employer's mechanic and driver-trainer were not credible. The claimant essentially argues that the ALJ's factual determinations are not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
To recover worker's compensation benefits, the claimant must prove he suffered a compensable injury. A compensable injury is one which arises out of and in the course of employment. § 8-41-301(1)(b), C.R.S. 2005. It is the claimant's burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a direct causal relationship between the employment and the injuries. § 8-43-201, C.R.S. 2005; Ramsdell v. Horn, 781 P.2d 150 (Colo.App. 1989). We must uphold the ALJ's determinations if supported by substantial evidence in the record. § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2005. Under this standard, we must defer to the ALJ's credibility determinations, his resolution of conflicts in the evidence, and his assessment of the sufficiency and probative weight of the evidence. Arenas v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 8 P.3d. 558 (Colo.App. 2000); Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990).
The ALJ's credibility determinations are binding unless rebutted by hard, certain evidence to the contrary. Halliburton Services v. Miller, 720 P.2d 571 (Colo. 1986); Dover Elevator Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 961 P.2d 1141 (Colo.App. 1998). Therefore, we may not interfere with an ALJ's credibility determinations except in extreme circumstances. Arenas v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 8 P.3d 558 (Colo.App. 2000). The testimony of the employer's driver-trainer, as suggested by the claimant, was arguably weakened by the question of whether his testimony involved the exact bus that the claimant was driving or not. Tr. (9/23/05) at 18. However, there are no extreme circumstances here which would warrant our disturbing the ALJ's credibility determinations. The ALJ expressly credited the employer's witnesses testimony as persuasive and there is ample support in the record for the ALJ's findings. Those findings support the conclusion that the claimant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he sustained a compensable work-related occupational disease or injury while working for the employer.
The claimant also argues that the opinion of Dr. Parry is more persuasive then that of Dr. Kalevik. However, the weight and credibility to be assigned expert testimony is a matter within the discretion of the ALJ. Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186 (Colo.App. 2002). The claimant's arguments essentially request that we reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ concerning the probative weight of the expert medical testimony. We have no authority to do so. Postlewait v. Midwest Barricade, 905 P.2d 21 (Colo.App. 1995); Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990). As with the lay testimony, Dr. Kalevik's testimony was not overwhelmingly rebutted such that the ALJ erred as a matter of law in crediting it. Halliburton Services v. Miller, supra. Moreover, the ALJ's finding that Dr. Parry's opinion was based upon an inaccurate history is supported by the record. We perceive no basis on which to interfere with the ALJ's finding.
We have reviewed the claimant's additional arguments and they do not alter our conclusions. The ALJ's findings and the record support the denial of the claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ's order dated October 13, 2005, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Curt Kriksciun
____________________________________ Thomas Schrant
Michael G. Castaldo, Denver, CO, Doreen Bovey, Denver Public Schools, Denver, CO, Maryanne Slick, Tristar Risk Management, Denver, CO, Anne Smith Myers, Esq. and Allison R. Ailer, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).