W.C. No. 4-324-544Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
September 17, 1997
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Erickson (ALJ) which awarded permanent bodily disfigurement benefits of $500. We affirm.
The ALJ found that the claimant has sustained serious, permanent bodily disfigurement which he described as a discolored, slightly raised scar about one and one-half inches long running around her right index finger, with stitch scars. The ALJ also found that the claimant is unable to fully extend her right index finger.
On review the claimant contends that “insufficient consideration” was given to the “disability and disfigurement” of her right index finger. In particular, the claimant notes the frustration and embarrassment she suffers from being unable to fully extend her finger. The claimant also asserts that she experiences pain and swelling in the finger.
Disfigurement benefits are designed to compensate for observable damage to parts of the body normally exposed to public view. See Twilight Jones Lounge v. Showers, 732 P.2d 1230
(Colo.App. 1986). They are not intended to compensate for pain and suffering either physical or emotional.
Further, § 8-42-108 C.R.S. 1997, under which disfigurement benefits are awarded, affords the ALJ great discretion in assessing the amount, up to $2,000, for permanent bodily disfigurement. See Arkin v. Industrial Commission, 145 Colo. 463, 358 P.2d 879 (1961). The legal standard on review of an alleged abuse of discretion is whether the ALJ’s order “exceeds the bounds of reason.” Rosenberg v. Board of Education of School District #1, 710 P.2d 1095 (Colo. 1985).
Here, the claimant does not dispute the ALJ’s description of her disfigurement. Based upon this description we cannot say that an award of $500 exceeds the bounds of reason. Therefore, we may not disturb the ALJ’s order.
Moreover, the ALJ’s award of disfigurement benefits was based upon his observation of the claimant’s disfigurement at a hearing on June 5, 1997, and we may not consider evidence which was not submitted to the ALJ. See Voisinet v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 757 P.2d 171 (Colo.App. 1988). Therefore, we may not consider the photographs the claimant has submitted on appeal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated June 10, 1997, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ David Cain
______________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacatethis Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, by filing a petition for writ ofcertiorari with the court, with service of a copy of the petitionupon 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. 1997.
Copies of this decision were mailed September 17, 1997 to the following parties:
Sharon A. Rose, 2996 S. Cherokee St., Englewood CO 80110
Staff Administrators, Inc., 4541 S. Navajo St., Englewood, CO 80110-5529
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 13111 E. Briarwood Ave., Ste. 100, Englewood, CO 80112
Jonathan Robbins, Esq., 1120 Lincoln St., #1606, Denver, CO 80203 (For Respondents)
BY: _______________________________