Seifried v. Industrial Com'n of State of Colo., 86CA0390
| Decision Date | 31 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86CA0390,86CA0390 |
| Citation | 736 P.2d 1262 |
| Parties | Winfred SEIFRIED, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF the STATE OF COLORADO; Director, Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Labor, State of Colorado; City and County of Denver, State of Colorado; and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Respondents. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Fogel, Keating and Wagner, P.C., Marshall A. Fogel, Denver, for petitioner.
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Christa D. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kathryn J. Aragon, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Mary Karen Maldonado, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents Indus. Com'n and Director, Dept. of Labor and Employment.
John E. McDermott, Denver, for respondent City and County of Denver.
Russell A. Stanley, Denver, for respondent State Compensation Ins. fund.
Winfred Seifried (claimant) seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Commission which affirmed an award for an admitted permanent partial disability, but denied his claim for permanent total disability benefits. We affirm.
In April 1979, claimant suffered an injury to his right arm and shoulder in the course of his employment as a utility worker. He received medical treatment and returned to work after two weeks. In June 1981, claimant again injured his right arm in the course of his employment and was diagnosed as having a cervical sprain. In July 1981, he returned to work under restrictions on lifting. Claimant worked for almost a year before permanently leaving work under disability retirement because of inability to perform his duties. Claimant testified that he was unable to crawl or climb and had lost 75% of the motion in his neck.
Respondents admitted liability for both injuries to the extent of a seven and one-half percent permanent partial disability for the 1979 injury and one percent permanent partial disability for the 1981 injury. Claimant contested these admissions of liability, asserting that his injuries rendered him permanently and totally disabled.
Claimant consulted two physicians. Dr. Quigley opined that claimant had sustained a 25% loss of function in his shoulder from the 1979 injury, and a two percent permanent partial disability from the 1979 and 1981 injuries combined. He concluded that claimant's total disability was caused by a pre-existing myositis condition and related therapy, which were unrelated to his occupational injuries.
Dr. Briney opined that claimant's total disability was the result of pre-existing degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis. Although he acknowledged that these conditions could be aggravated or accelerated by a specific trauma such as those claimant had suffered, he stated that claimant's injuries were not the basis for his opinion that claimant was permanently and totally disabled. He further stated that the 1979 injury, which resulted in a torn right bicep, was not a significant factor in claimant's total disability.
The Commission denied the claim for permanent total disability benefits based on the conclusion that there was "a lack of medical substantiation that the conditions which contribute to claimant's permanent total disability have been significantly caused by his industrial injuries...." (emphasis added)
Claimant contends that the Commission erred in denying his claim. He asserts that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Askew v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colo.
...86, 89, 367 P.2d 894, 895 (1962); Mathews v. Industrial Comm'n, 144 Colo. 146, 149, 355 P.2d 300, 302 (1960); Seifried v. Industrial Comm'n, 736 P.2d 1262, 1263 (Colo.App.1986); Jones v. Adolph Coors Co., 689 P.2d 681, 683 (Colo.App.1984). It therefore follows from the provisions of the AMA......
-
Waddell v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of State of Colo., 97CA0611
...once again fully responsible for those benefits. Cf. Subsequent Injury Fund v. Thompson, 793 P.2d 576 (1990); Seifried v. Industrial Commission, 736 P.2d 1262 (Colo.App.1986); State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Commission, 697 P.2d 807 (Colo.App.1985). Or so it Twelve years lat......
-
Subsequent Injury Fund v. Thompson, 89SC230
...Colo. 555, 566-67, 307 P.2d 454, 459 (1957); Kamp v. Disney, 110 Colo. 518, 522, 135 P.2d 1019, 1021 (1943); Seifried v. Industrial Comm'n, 736 P.2d 1262, 1263 (Colo.App.1986) ("if a disability were 95% attributable to a pre-existing, but stable, condition and 5% attributable to an occupati......
-
Cooper v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 98CA1343.
...necessitates a determination of the nature and extent of her residual impairment from the industrial injury. See Seifried v. Industrial Commission, 736 P.2d 1262 (Colo.App.1986). Second, the parties were the same in the proceedings before the first ALJ and second The third factor, requiring......
-
Sticking Points Part 2: a Survey of Remedies for Vaccination Injuries
...Fund v. Thompson, 793 P.2d 576 (Colo. 1990); H&H Warehouse v. Vicory, 805 P.2d 1167 (Colo.App. 1990). But see Seifried v. Indus. Comm'n, 736 P.2d 1262 (Colo. App. 1986). [23] CRS § 8-41-102. The "exclusive remedy" doctrine, however, does not bar federal or state statutory and common law rem......
-
A Primer on the Requirements for a Compensable Injury
...affect the citation here) (discussing Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 379 P.2d 153 (Colo. 1962)); Seifried v. Indus. Comm'n, 736 P.2d 1262 (Colo.App. 1986). [28] Ramsdell v. Horn, 781 P.2d 150 (Colo.App. 1989). [29] City of Boulder v. Streeb, 706 P.2d 786, 791 (Colo. 1985). Thi......