W.C. No. 4-473-733Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 10, 2001
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Coughlin (ALJ) which awarded $200 in disfigurement benefits. We affirm.
The claimant sustained an injury to his forehead. A disfigurement hearing was scheduled for February 6, 2001. The claimant appeared in person and the respondents did not appear. The ALJ described the claimant’s disfigurement as a “small scar to forehead.” Under these circumstances, the ALJ awarded disfigurement benefits of $200. The claimant timely appealed.
On review, the claimant asserts the ALJ’s award does not sufficiently compensate him for the fact there is no practical way to cover the scar. The claimant also contends that estimates for plastic surgery to remove the scar far exceed the disfigurement award. In support, the claimant has provided a letter from reconstructive surgeon, Dr. Schmid, dated February 21, 2001. Therefore, the claimant requests that the disfigurement award be increased to $2000.
Section 8-42-108, C.R.S. 2000, allows an ALJ to award disfigurement benefits up to a maximum of $2000 if the claimant is “seriously, permanently disfigured about the head, face or part of the body normally exposed to public view.” The statute affords the ALJ great discretion in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for bodily disfigurement. The ALJ views the disfigurement and is the best position to assess what amount should be awarded. We may not interfere with the ALJ’s determination absent an abuse of discretion, which is defined as an order which “exceeds the bounds of reason.” Rosenberg v. Board of Education of School District #1, 710 P.2d 1095 (Colo. 1985). An order is an abuse of discretion where it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or the applicable law. Coates, Reid Waldron v. Vigil, 856 P.2d 850 (Colo. 1993). Accordingly, the scope of our review is exceedingly narrow.
We have reviewed the record, including photographs of the scar. Insofar as the claimant contests the ALJ’s factual description of the scar, we cannot say the ALJ’s finding is inconsistent with the photographs. Therefore, we are bound by the ALJ’s description of the disfigurement. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2000; Arenas v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 8 P.3d 558 (Colo.App. 2000). Moreover, the ALJ’s award does not violate § 8-42-108. The ALJ considered the relevant criteria and could reasonably exercise her judgement to conclude that the scar, though “serious” as contemplated by the statute, it fell within the lower range of disfigurements contemplated by the statute. Therefore, even if we would have granted a greater award, we cannot say that as a matter of law, the ALJ’s award “exceeds the bounds of reason.”
Furthermore, our view is restricted to the evidence before the ALJ. See City of Boulder v. Dinsmore, 902 P.2d 925 (Colo.App. 1995). Consequently, we may not consider the evidence in Dr. Schmid’s report which was prepared subsequent to the ALJ’s order.
In any case, disfigurement benefits are awarded for the visual consequences of an industrial injury, not medical costs associated with removing the disfigurement. See Arkin v. Industrial Commission, 145 Colo. 463, 358 P.2d 879 (1961); Twilight Lounge v. Showers, 732 P.2d 1230 (Colo.App. 1986). Accordingly, the cost of reconstructive surgery is not a relevant factor to the determination of an appropriate disfigurement award. In this respect, we note that, insofar as the scar can be removed, the scar may not be “permanent,” as contemplated by § 8-42-108. See § 8-42-101(1)(a), C.R.S. 2000 (providing for medical benefits that are reasonably necessary to “cure and relieve the employee from the effects of the injury”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated February 7, 2001, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
____________________________________ Dona Halsey
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. 2000. 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 May 10, 2001 to the following parties:
Bruce A. Dixon, 108 Locust Ave., Brighton, CO 80603
Compass Logistics, Inc., 10251 E. 51st Ave., #A, Denver, CO 80239-2427
Argonaut Midwest Insurance Co., 5690 DTC Blvd., #290 West, Englewood, CO 80111
BY: A. Pendroy