IN RE ASKIN, W.C. No. 4-244-543 (9/15/1995)


IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF JULIE A. ASKIN, Claimant, v. BATTLEMENT MESA MANAGEMENT, Employer, and UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurer, Respondents.

W.C. No. 4-244-543Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
September 15, 1995

FINAL ORDER

The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Martinez (ALJ) which awarded her $150 for permanent bodily disfigurement. We affirm.

The ALJ found that the claimant has permanent bodily disfigurement described as a surgical scar one inch by one-eighth to one-quarter inch wide, at the base of the left thumb. The ALJ found that the scar is pinkish in color and has suture marks at regular intervals along both sides which are whitish in color.

The claimant contends that the ALJ’s award does not compensate her for the fact that the scar is a constant reminder of the industrial accident. The claimant also contends that scar has “gotten worse” and is now “purple.”

Section 8-42-108 C.R.S. (1994 Cum. Supp.), under which disfigurement benefits are awarded, affords the ALJ great discretion in assessing the amount to be awarded. See Arkin v. Industrial Commission, 145 Colo. 463, 358 P.2d 879 (1961). Consequently, we may not interfere with the ALJ’s award in the absence of fraud or an abuse of discretion. Brunetti v. Industrial Commission, 670 P.2d 1246 (Colo.App. 1983). Moreover, 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 the scar at the time of the disfigurement hearing, and has not provided a hearing transcript. Therefore, we must assume that the ALJ’s description is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988). Further, we cannot say that an award of $150 for the disfigurement described the ALJ exceeds the bounds of reason, and consequently, we must uphold the award.

Insofar as the claimant contends that the scar has worsened subsequent to the ALJ’s order, the claimant is not precluded from petitioning to reopen her claim.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated June 21, 1995, is affirmed.

INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL

____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean

NOTICE

This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate this Order iscommenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO80203, by filing a petition for review with the court, with service of acopy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and allother parties, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order ismailed, pursuant to section 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.).

Copies of this decision were mailed September 15, 1995 to the following parties:

Julie A. Askin, 0271 Blackhawk Trail, Parachute, CO 81635

Battlement Mesa Management, P.O. Box 6000, Battlement Mesa, CO 81636-6000

Utica Mutual Insurance Company, c/o Lindsey Morden Claim Service, 6021 S. Syracuse Way, Ste. 213, Englewood, CO 80111

BY: _______________________