W.C. No. 4-263-154Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 14, 1996
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ) which denied and dismissed his claim due to lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
The claimant concedes that jurisdiction in this state is governed by the statutory language currently codified at § 8-41-204 C.R.S. (1995 Cum. Supp). That statute provides that:
“If an employee who has been hired or is regularly employed in this state receives personal injuries in an accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of such employment outside of this state, the employee, or such employee’s dependents in case of death, shall be entitled to compensation according to the law of this state. This provision shall apply only to those injuries received by the employee within six months after leaving this state, unless prior to the expiration of such six-month period, the employer has filed with the division notice that the employer has elected to extend such coverage for a greater period of time.” (Emphasis added).
Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the ALJ’s findings of fact were based upon the written material submitted by the parties. Specifically, the ALJ found that during April 1989, the claimant was hired by the respondent-employer in Colorado. After being hired, the claimant left the state of Colorado and did not perform any employment duties for the respondent-employer in Colorado. The ALJ also found that the claimant’s alleged injury on January 7, 1991, occurred more than six months after the claimant left the state of Colorado. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Colorado does not have jurisdiction over the claim.
On appeal, the claimant asserts that he returned to Colorado several times between April 1989 and the industrial injury, with the latest return within six months of January 7, 1991. In so doing, the claimant admits that the did not present evidence in support of this assertion before the ALJ. However, he argues that he did not have advanced notice that this evidence would be determinative of the jurisdictional issue. Therefore, he contends that he was denied due process. We disagree.
Initially, we note that the “Claimant’s Reply to Defendants/Respondents Motion to Dismiss” explicitly recites the jurisdictional requirements set forth in § 8-41-204. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the claimant was unaware of the relevancy of evidence concerning whether he was injured “within six months after leaving this state.”
Regardless, pro se litigants must adhere to the same principles and procedures as those who are qualified to practice law, and are not entitled to any special treatment. Thus, the claimant is presumed to understand the legal principles which govern his claim, and must be prepared and accept the consequences of his failure to present the requisite evidence. Manka v. Martin, 200 Colo. 260, 614 P.2d 875 (1980); Rosenberg v. Grady, 843 P.2d 25
(Colo.App. 1992).
Moreover, we have no authority to consider evidence which was not presented before ALJ, and the claimant’s arguments to the contrary are without merit. Frank v. Industrial Commission, 96 Colo. 364, 43 P.2d 158
(1935); Subsequent Injury Fund v. Gallegos, 746 P.2d 71 (Colo.App. 1987). Therefore, we may not consider the claimant’s factual assertions which are contrary to the ALJ’s finding that the injury did not occur within six months of the date the claimant left the state of Colorado. Consequently, the claimant has failed to establish grounds which afford us a basis to set aside the ALJ’s order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated February 27, 1996, 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 May 14, 1996 to the following parties:
James P. Darby, 820 Martin St., Longmont, CO 80501
Trilogy Consulting Corp., 850 S. Green Bay Road, Waukegan, IL 60085-7076
Travelers Insurance Company, P.O. Box 473502, Charlotte, NC 28247-3502
Christina M. Middendorf, Esq., 1290 Broadway, Ste. 708, Denver, CO 80203 (For the Respondents)
BY: _______________________