W.C. No. 4-165-084Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
August 28, 1997
FINAL ORDER
The respondent, Alert Security Systems, Inc., seeks review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Wells (ALJ), holding it liable for medical benefits. We affirm.
We previously remanded this matter for entry of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law determining whether or not Alert Security Systems, Inc. (Alert Security) should be held jointly and severally liable with Alert Security Patrol, Inc. (Alert Patrol). On remand, the ALJ found that Alert Security and Alert Patrol shared common ownership, provided similar services, and that there was no evidence that the two entities maintained separate corporate identities. Under these circumstances, the ALJ concluded that the corporations were the “alter ego of each other,” and should be held jointly and severally liable for the claimant’s benefits.
On review, Alert Security has not filed a brief in support of its petition to review. The petition to review merely asserts that the ALJ’s conclusions are contrary to the evidence, including documentary evidence establishing that the claimant was paid by checks issued by Alert Patrol.
Because Alert Security has not filed a brief, the effectiveness of our review is limited. Moreover, Alert Patrol has not provided a transcript of the hearing. Consequently, we must assume that the ALJ’s pertinent findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988).
Here, the ALJ has found that the circumstances justify disregard of the separate corporate identities of Alert Security and Alert Patrol. The law permits disregard of the corporate entity under certain circumstances, and Alert Security has made no specific contention that the ALJ’s legal analysis is incorrect. Cf. Micciche v. Billings, 727 P.2d 367 (Colo. 1986).
Further, Alert Security’s factual allegations afford no basis for relief on appeal. Since Alert Security did not provide a transcript, we are without any basis for interfering with the ALJ’s findings. The mere fact that there may have been conflicting evidence does not create a reviewable issue. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated March 11, 1997, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ David Cain
______________________________ Dona Halsey
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacatethe Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80203, by filing a petition toreview 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 the Order was mailed,pursuant to §§ 8-43-301(10) and 307, C. R. S. (1996 Cum.Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed August 28, 1997 to the following parties:
Ralph D. Curtis, 10741 E. Houghton Lake Drive, Houghton Lake, MI 48629
Alert Security Systems, Inc., 4413 Austin Bluffs Pkwy., Colorado Springs, CO 80918
Alert Security Patrol, 2850 Serendipity Circle, Ste. 202, Colorado Springs, CO 80917
Lloyd Moreau, 4413 Austin Bluffs Pkwy., Colorado Springs, CO 80918
Patricia Nolan, 4413 Austin Bluffs Pkwy., Colorado Springs, CO 80918
Martin D. Kuhn, Esq., 21 E. Monument St., Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (For the Claimant)
By: _______________________________