W.C. No. 4-429-730Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
December 18, 2001
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Mattoon (ALJ) which denied the claim for medical benefits and temporary disability benefits for an admitted injury of May 28, 1999. We dismiss the petition to review.
The issues presented to the ALJ concerned medical benefits, and temporary disability benefits from June 25, 1999 through August 17, 1999. The ALJ determined the contested medical expenses were not authorized and denied them. The ALJ also concluded the claimant failed to prove he was disabled by the industrial injury during the disputed period of time. Consequently, the ALJ denied the claim for temporary disability benefits.
After procuring an extension of time, claimant’s counsel filed a petition to review alleging that the findings are not sufficient to support appellate review, conflicts in the evidence are not resolved, the findings of fact are not supported by the evidence, the findings do not support the order, and the ALJ’s decision is contrary to applicable law. The petition to review also “respectfully requests that an Order be entered remanding this case to [the ALJ] and directing her to enter an Order finding the claimant did not willfully violate a safety rule.” The claimant did not file any brief in support of this petition to review.
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2001, provides that a “petition to review shall be in writing and shall set forth in detail the particular errors and objections of the petitioner.” (Emphasis added). The requirement for a detailed petition to review is not jurisdictional. However the Court of Appeals has held that if a petition to review does not comply with the specificity requirement the Panel need not consider the petition unless it “elects to do so.” Oxford Chemicals, Inc. v. Richardson, 782 P.2d 843 (Colo.App. 1989).
The claimant’s petition to review is no more specific than the petition described in the Oxford case, except for its reference to the safety rule penalty. However, the ALJ did not consider or rule on any penalty issues. Consequently, as was true in Oxford, the claimant’s petition to review is not sufficiently definite to comply with §8-43-301(2). However, in this case we elect not to consider the claimant’s petition to review. The case before us presents a relatively complex fact pattern which may or may not implicate various principles of law. Because the claimant has not disputed any specific factual or legal determinations by identifying them in the petition to review or by filing a brief, we are left to speculate concerning the precise reasons for the claimant’s appeal. Any specific issues which we raise sua sponte might require us to abandon our role as neutral adjudicators and assume the role of de facto advocates for the claimant. Further, if we raise specific issues the respondents could be deprived of due process of law unless they are afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond and make argument. Under these circumstances, we conclude that it is appropriate to dismiss the claimant’s petition to review for lack of specificity.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claimant’s petition to review the ALJ’s order dated June 12, 2001, is dismissed with prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
________________________________ David Cain
________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
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. 2001. 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 December 18, 2001 to the following parties:
James Fuller, 1984 E. Saxony, #4, Pueblo West, CO 81007
Budweiser, Pueblo Distributing, 1600 N. Erie Ave., Pueblo, CO 81001-2574
Michael J. Steiner, Esq., Pinnacol Assurance — Interagency Mail (For Respondents)
James R. Koncilja, Esq., 125 W. “B” St., Pueblo, CO 81003 (For Claimant)
Craig R. Anderson, Esq., 101 N. Tejon, #410, Colorado Springs, CO 80903
BY: A. Pendroy