W.C. No. 4-417-038Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
April 28, 2000
FINAL ORDER
The non-insured respondent seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Felter (ALJ) dated August 16, 1999, which determined the claimant suffered a compensable injury and ordered the respondent to pay medical benefits, temporary disabilities benefits and penalties. We affirm.
The claimant alleged a work-related shoulder injury on April 12, 1999, when he slipped and fell on a wet floor while entering a bathroom near the job site. A full-contest hearing was held before the ALJ on July 14, 1999. The respondent did not attend the hearing. However, the ALJ found the respondent had notice of the hearing and the issues in dispute
In an order dated July 27, 1999, the ALJ found the respondent was not insured for workers’ compensation at the time of the alleged injury. The respondent did not appeal the July 27 order
In the order dated August 16, 1999, the ALJ found the claimant sustained a compensable shoulder injury on April 12 while working as a employee of the respondent. At a result of the injury the claimant received emergency treatment at the Columbia Aurora Medical Center. The ALJ also found that the claimant timely reported the injury to the respondent but the respondent did not tender the services of a physician. Therefore, the ALJ determined that the right to select a treating physician passed to the claimant and treatment provided by the physician the claimant selected is authorized. The ALJ also found that the treatment was reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the shoulder injury. Therefore, the ALJ ordered the respondents to pay medical benefits of $313.50. Further, the ALJ determined the claimant’s average weekly wage is $400, and found that the claimant was temporarily partially disabled from April 13, 1999 to July 3, 1999, as a result of the industrial injury. Including a fifty percent penalty for the respondent’s failure to carry workers’ compensation insurance, the ALJ ordered the respondent to pay temporary disability benefits of $3,514.52. The respondent timely appealed the ALJ’s order
The respondent’s Petition to Review contains general allegations of error. See section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 1999. The respondent also contends the ALJ’s order “constitutes an abuse of discretion.” However, the respondent has not filed a brief in support of the petition to review. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited. See Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642 (Colo.App. 1986)
First we reject the respondent’s contention that “conflicts of the evidence are not sufficiently resolved in the record” to permit appellate review. The respondent did not participate in the hearing, and thus, did not present a defense to the claim Consequently, the claimant’s evidence was essentially undisputed
In any case, it is apparent from the ALJ’s order that he resolved any pertinent conflicts based upon his implicit determination to credit the testimony of the claimant and his co-worker, Anthony Arellano. Consequently, the ALJ’s order is sufficient to permit appellate review See Martinez v. Regional Transportation District, 832 P.2d 1060
(Colo.App. 1992); Boice v Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 800 P.2d 1339
(Colo.App. 1990)
We have reviewed the transcript and the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Therefore, the findings are binding on review. § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 1999; Dover Elevator Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 961 P.2d 1141 (Colo.App. 1998). Furthermore, the ALJ’s findings support the award of benefits and penalties. See §8-41-301(1), 8-43-408, C.R.S. 199 ; PDM Molding, Inc. v. Stanberg, 898 P.2d 542 (Colo. 1995); Ocean Accident Guaranty Corp. v. Pallaro, 66 Colo. 190, 180 P. 95 (1919); Rogers v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 746 P.2d 565 (Colo.App. 1987)
Finally, the respondent does not specific articulate the basis for his contention that the ALJ’s order “constitutes an abuse of discretion.” The standard on review of an alleged abuse of discretion is whether the ALJ’s order “exceeds the bounds of reason,” such as where it is not supported by the record or violates a rule or statute
As previously stated, the ALJ’s factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and the award is consistent with applicable law. Under these circumstances, we perceive no abuse of discretion and therefore, the respondent has failed to establish grounds which afford us a basis to interfere with the ALJ’s order
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated August 16, 1999, is affirmed
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
________________________________ Robert M. Socolofsky
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, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to § 8-43-301(10) and § 8-43-307, C.R.S. 1999 The appealing party must serve a copy of the petition upon all other parties, including the Industrial Claim Appeals Office, which may be served by mail at 1515 Arapahoe, Tower 3, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202
Copies of this decision were mailed April 28, 2000 to the followingparties:
Walter C. Bryant, 1172 Kenton St., Aurora, CO 80010
David R. Calvert d/b/a Village Asphalt, 17040 E. Carr Ave., Parker, CO 80134-7607
David R. Calvert, Esq., 5299 D.T.C. Blvd., #620, Greenwood Village, CO 80111-3327
(For Respondent)
Kevin C. Smith, Esq., 650 S. Cherry St., #820, Denver, CO 80246 (For Claimant)
BY: A. Pendroy