W.C. Nos. 4-381-081, 4-418-010, 4-437-957, 4-444-985Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
January 29, 2001
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Stuber (ALJ) which dismissed three claims for workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant disputes the ALJ’s determination that her failure to provide discovery warranted dismissal of the claims. We affirm.
In each of the three claims, the respondents submitted releases to the claimant for the purpose of obtaining medical information relevant to the claims. The claimant failed to sign the releases, and the respondents filed a motion to compel discovery in each claim. A Prehearing Administrative Law Judge then entered orders requiring the claimant to provide the releases within 10 days. The claimant did not comply with these orders, but set the claims for hearing. The respondents moved for entry of orders dismissing the claims for failure to provide discovery. However, the ALJ declined to dismiss the claims.
Instead, the ALJ vacated a hearing scheduled for May 1, 2000, and set the matter for a prehearing conference. At the prehearing conference, the ALJ ordered the claimant to provide the medical releases or face dismissal of the claims. The claimant was afforded an opportunity to consider her decision, but persisted in refusing to sign the releases. Consequently, the ALJ dismissed all three claims pursuant to § 8-43-207(1)(e), C.R.S. 2000, based on the claimant’s willful failure to make discovery.
On review, the claimant contends the ALJ refused to consider the respondents’ failure to pay benefits to which the claimant was allegedly entitled, and the ALJ’s failure to consider a “compromise” resolution of the issues. We perceive no error.
The ALJ correctly held that the filing of the claims constituted a “limited waiver” of the doctor-patient privilege. Section 8-47-203(1), C.R.S. 2000. Therefore, execution of the requested medical releases constituted a form “permitted discovery” for purposes of § 8-43-207(1)(e). Sheid v. Hewlett Packard, 826 P.2d 396 (Colo.App. 1991). Further, the statute permits dismissal of a claim in cases where a party’s disobedience of discovery orders is intentional or deliberate, or where a party has exhibited a flagrant disregard of discovery obligations or a substantial deviation from reasonable care in complying with discovery obligations. Reed v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 13 P.3d 810 (Colo.App. 2000), cert. pending. We may not interfere with a discovery sanction imposed by the ALJ unless there has been an abuse of discretion. Sheid v. Hewlett Packard, supra.
Here, the ALJ did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the claims. The claimant was not influenced by lesser sanctions including orders to make discovery and the continuance of a scheduled hearing. Further, the ALJ explicitly cautioned the claimant that refusal to sign the releases would result in dismissal of the claims, but the claimant persisted in her refusal. The claimant’s assertions notwithstanding, the ALJ was not obliged to “compromise” the issue of discovery by requiring the respondents to pay benefits prior to completion of discovery and proper adjudication of the issues. The evidence fully supports the ALJ’s conclusion that the claimant willfully refused to make permitted discovery.
We find no error based on the claimant’s assertion that the Division of Administrative Hearings failed to make “reasonable accommodation.” In this regard, the claimant asserts that the typewriter on which she typed her responses to questions posed at the hearing did not have a bell to indicate the end of a line, and that the backspace key did not work properly. According to the claimant, this meant that some of her responses were “not always understood.”
Initially, we note that we lack jurisdiction to enforce federal disability statutes and impose remedies for alleged violations of those statutes. Our jurisdiction is restricted to enforcement of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Lewis v. Scientific Supply Co., Inc., 897 P.2d 905 (Colo.App. 1995). Nevertheless, we would not hesitate to set aside the order if the claimant’s due process rights had been denied, or the transcript was not sufficient to comply with § 8-43-213(1), C.R.S. 2000 (hearings are to be recorded verbatim).
Here, the claimant typed her responses to questions, and the responses were then read into the record. Although the claimant voiced the opinion that the typewriter did not constitute a “reasonable accommodation,” at no point did she object that the responses read into the record did not reflect her actual statements. Further, on appeal, the claimant does not specify the nature of the alleged inaccuracies, nor does she indicate how these inaccuracies could have affected the result. Thus, we perceive no basis for interfering with the order.
Insofar as the claimant makes other arguments, we find them to be without merit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated May 2, 2000, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ 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. 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 January 29, 2001 to the following parties:
Maria J. Fay, P. O. Box 101614, Denver, CO 80250
Maria J. Fay, P. O. Box 386, Commerce City, CO 80037
Steve Shomaker, United Parcel Service, 5020 Ivy St., Commerce City, CO 80022
United Parcel Service, 6355 E. 50th Ave., Commerce City, CO 80022-4517
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance, 13111 E. Briarwood Ave., Englewood, CO 80112
Joellen Walter, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance, P. O. Box 168208, Irving TX 75016-8208
John M. Connell, Esq., and Scott D. Sweeney, Esq., 1675 Larimer St., #710, Denver, CO 80203 (For Respondents)
BY: A. Pendroy