W.C. No. 4-111-399Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
February 6, 1997
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant has filed a Petition for Review of an order issued by Chief Administrative Law Judge Felter (ALJ), dated August 29, 1996. We affirm.
Following a hearing on August 15, 1996, the ALJ determined that the claimant failed to sustain his burden to prove that he was not at maximum medical improvement. Therefore, the ALJ denied the claimant’s request for further temporary disability benefits. The ALJ also found that the claimant failed to make a proper showing for a change of provider. However, pursuant to the respondents’ agreement the ALJ ordered payment for the cost of electromyographic studies of the claimant’s right upper extremity.
In his Petition for Review, the claimant asserts that he objects to the ALJ’s order because he “is having a language problem Spanish speaking only.” The claimant also asserts that he found an attorney who speaks Spanish, and is presently attempting to retain the attorney. However, the claimant does not indicate that the alleged language problem prevented him from effectively participating in the hearing. In this respect, we note that the ALJ’s order indicates that the claimant was represented by an attorney at the hearing.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether the claimant is asserting that the language problem interferes with his ability to understand the ALJ’s order, or to articulate a basis for the appeal. Moreover, the claimant has not filed a brief in support of his Petition for Review, which limits the effectiveness of our review. See Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642
(Colo.App. 1986). Nevertheless, even if the claimant is asserting difficulty in pursuing the Petition for Review, this does not establish a basis for interfering with the ALJ’s order.
Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.), precludes us from disturbing the ALJ’s order unless the findings of fact are insufficient to permit appellate review, conflicts in the evidence are not resolved, the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, the findings of fact do not support the order, or the order is contrary to the law. The factual assertions set forth in the claimant’s Petition for Review do not implicate any of these grounds for appellate relief.
Nor do we perceive any basis for disturbing the order. The ALJ’s findings are sufficient to permit appellate review, and the findings indicate that the ALJ resolved conflicts in the evidence based upon his credibility determinations. See Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992).
Furthermore, the claimant has not provided a transcript of the August 15 hearing. Consequently, we must presume that the ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988). Finally, the ALJ’s findings support the order, and the order is consistent with the applicable law. See Colo. Sess. Laws 1991, ch. 219 at 1309; Postlewait v. Midwest Barricade, 905 P.2d 21
(Colo.App. 1995).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated August 29, 1996, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
____________________________________ Dona Halsey
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate this Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, by filing a petition for review with the court, with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to section 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed February 6, 1997 to the following parties:
Leonel Rosas Romero, 1577 Julian St., Denver, CO 80204
D B Enterprises Inc., P.O. Box 4597, Englewood, CO 80155-4597
Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, Attn: Legal Dept. (Interagency Mail)
Richard T. Goold, Esq., 1017 S. Gaylord St., Denver, CO 80209 (For the Claimant)
Timothy L. Nemechek, Esq., 999 18th St., Ste. 3100, Denver, CO 80202 (For the Respondents)
BY: _______________________