W.C. No. 4-207-223Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
August 8, 1997
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Wells (ALJ) dated November 22, 1996. We affirm.
The claimant alleged that she sustained physical and psychological injuries in the course of a robbery during her employment at the Taco Bell restaurant. The respondents filed a General Admission of Liability admitting liability for temporary total disability and medical benefits. However, the respondents subsequently moved to withdraw the Admission on grounds of fraud.
From conflicting evidence, the ALJ found that the robbery was staged and that the claimant was a voluntary participant. The ALJ also found that the claimant voluntarily allowed herself to be physically assaulted to make it look more like a robbery. In so doing the ALJ found the claimant’s testimony incredible.
Based upon these findings, the ALJ determined the claimant’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. Further, the ALJ determined that the respondents’ General Admission was induced by the claimant’s fraudulent representations. Therefore, the ALJ granted the respondents’ motion to withdraw their General Admission of Liability.
The claimant’s Petition for Review asserts general allegations of error. See § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.). The claimant also contends that the ALJ erred as a matter of fact and law in finding that the respondents’ General Admission of Liability was induced by fraud. However, the claimant did not file a brief in support of her petition. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited. See Oxford Chemicals, Inc. v. Richardson, 782 P.2d 843 (Colo.App. 1989); Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642 (Colo.App. 1986).
We have reviewed the ALJ’s findings of fact and the transcript from the hearing held on November 5, 1996. Notwithstanding the claimant’s assertions to the contrary, the ALJ’s factual determinations are supported by substantial albeit conflicting evidence in the record. Consequently, we must uphold the ALJ’s findings of fact. Delta Drywall v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 868 P.2d 1155 (Colo.App. 1993). Furthermore, the ALJ’s findings support the ALJ’s conclusions of law, and order. See Vargo v. Industrial Commission, 626 P.2d 1164 (Colo.App. 1981). Therefore, we have no basis on which to disturb the ALJ’s order. Section 8-43-301(8).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated, November 22, 1996, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ David Cain
______________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacatethis Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, by filing a petition for reviewwith the court, with service of a copy of the petition upon theIndustrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, withintwenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant tosection 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1995 Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed August 8, 1997 to the following parties:
Linda L. Freeman, 4304-C North Weber, Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Colomex, Inc. d/b/a Taco Bell, 717 North Tejon St., Colorado Springs, CO 80902-1011
Barbara Trefren, Adjuster, Aetna Casualty Surety, P.O. Box 172172, Denver, CO 80217
Lawrence D. Blackman, Esq.,1515 Arapahoe St., Tower 3, Ste. 600, Denver, CO 80202 (For the Respondents)
By: _______________________________