W.C. Nos. 4-632-376, 4-634-777, 4-654-877.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
June 29, 2006.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of a corrected order of Administrative Law Judge Mattoon (ALJ) that orders the respondents to comply with a child support lien as long as it is valid. We affirm.
The claimant sought compensation for his injuries and applied for a hearing. Exhibit P. The respondents requested penalties against the claimant and added several other issues to be heard, including the matter of a lien for past due child support and corresponding reductions in indemnity benefit payments. Exhibit Q. The ALJ noted the issue of liens at the subsequent hearing. Tr. (9/7/05) at 4.
The ALJ issued her Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Order) on January 25, 2006. The order included offsets and a lien for past due child support as issues to be determined. Order at 2, ¶ 9. The order provided benefits to the claimant and recognized that the respondents were entitled to “applicable offsets pursuant to law.” Order at 12, ¶ 6. However, the order failed to specifically make mention of any lien for child support.
On February 10, 2006, the respondents filed by mail an “Unopposed Motion for Corrected Order,” asserting that the ALJ, either mistakenly or inadvertently, failed to address the impact on benefits of the child support lien submitted at hearing. They asked the ALJ to issue a corrected order stating that the claimant’s indemnity benefits were subject to the lien, if valid, and further stating that the respondents had to comply with the lien, accordingly. In their motion, the respondents represented that the claimant’s attorney had been contacted and did not object to the relief requested. The ALJ issued a corrected order on February 14, 2006, which added a finding that the claimant “is the subject of an outstanding child support lien.” Corrected Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Corrected Order) at 9, ¶ 49. The ALJ also added a corresponding provision that the claimant’s indemnity benefits are affected by the outstanding child support lien and ordered that the respondents “should comply with that lien as long as the lien is valid.” Corrected Order at 12, ¶ 6.
The claimant challenges the ALJ’s corrected order. We note that the claimant filed a “Motion to Reverse Corrected Order” that the ALJ appears to have treated as a petition to review. Although the claimant’s motion does not appear to be in the form of a petition to review, we nonetheless consider his arguments in the context of an appeal under § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2005.
The claimant makes procedural objections, stating that he was not asked by the respondents’ counsel for his permission to file the motion for a corrected order uncontested . He also notes that the respondents’ motion for a corrected order was mailed the same day that an ALJ entered an order allowing the claimant’s attorneys leave to withdraw from the case. That order does not appear in the record, but a copy of it is attached to the claimant’s brief and the respondents acknowledge its effect in this case. However, the respondents acted appropriately in contacting the claimant’s attorney concerning their motion, rather than the claimant directly, since they had not yet been notified that an ALJ granted the motion of the claimant’s counsel to withdraw.
As far as the substance of the Corrected Order is concerned, the claimant essentially argues that the child support lien referenced in the Corrected Order is invalid and he requests that he be reimbursed for any benefits paid to satisfy the lien until such time as the lien is proved to be valid. We perceive no error in the ALJ issuing a corrected order to recognize the child support lien to the extent the lien has any validity.
The claimant testified that he disputed the validity of the lien, but he acknowledged that it was outstanding. Tr. (6/1/05) at 93. In addition, a copy of the lien is included in the record. Exhibit O. The record therefore supports the ALJ’s finding that the claimant is subject to an outstanding lien and we may not disturb that finding. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2005; See Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186
(Colo.App. 2002).
In entering the Corrected Order, the ALJ merely states the obvious by recognizing that the respondents were required to comply with the child support lien “as long as the lien is valid.” See § 8-42-124(1), C.R.S. 2005 (compensation benefits subject to court-ordered support); § 8-43-204(4), C.R.S. 2005 (indemnity portion of award or settlement subject to lien and attachment for child support); § 26-13-122, C.R.S. 2005 (providing for administrative lien and attachment of worker’s compensation benefits for child support). Thus, the ALJ effectively ordered the respondents to recognize the child support lien, but only to the extent it is valid and enforceable. The ALJ could do no less in the circumstances. See §26-13-122(2) (insurer providing workers’ compensation benefits issued notice of lien and attachment obligated to withhold portion of workers’ compensation proceeds owed to claimant until amount satisfied or released by state child support enforcement agency). To the extent the claimant seeks to contest the validity of the child support lien and attachment, he may do so through the processes provided. See, e.g., § 26-13-122(3) (discussing administrative review of lien and attachment).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s Corrected Order dated February 14, 2006, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________________________ John D. Baird
___________________________________ Curt Kriksciun
Everett Young, Sr., Fountain, CO, Bobby Brown’s Bail Bonds, Inc., Monument, CO, Harvey D. Flewelling, Esq., Pinnacol Assurance — Interagency Mail.