W.C. No. 4-607-353.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 11, 2006.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ) dated December 12, 2005, which determined the claimant’s appeal of the ALJ’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order dated September 9, 2005 was untimely and, therefore, dismissed the claimant’s petition to review. We affirm.
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2005, provides that an ALJ’s order which denies benefits is final unless the party dissatisfied with the order files a petition to review within 20 days of the date of the certificate of mailing of the order. This requirement is jurisdictional and thus, the failure to file a timely petition to review precludes the Panel from reviewing the ALJ’s order Buschmann v. Gallegos Masonry, Inc., 805 P.2d 1193 (Colo.App. 1991).
On September 9, 2005, the ALJ entered an order which allowed the insurer to take certain offsets and deductions from the claimant’s benefits. The order contains a certificate of mailing that it was mailed to the claimant’s attorney of record on September 12, 2005. Therefore, the ALJ’s order was final in the absence of the filing of a petition to review on or before October 3, 2005. See Section 2-4-108(2), C.R.S. 2005 (time period extended to next day that is not a Sunday).
The ALJ’s order contained a notice to the parties advising them that any petition to review needed to be filed at the address for the Office of Administrative Courts at 633-17th Street, Suite 1300, in Denver. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, at 9. However, the certificate of mailing for the claimant’s petition to review indicates that the petition was mailed by the claimant’s attorney to the previous address for the ALJ.
The ALJ entered a subsequent order on December 12, 2005, dismissing the claimant’s petition to review as untimely filed. The ALJ determined that the claimant’s petition to review was not mailed to the proper address for the Office of Administrative Courts and was not received until October 12, 2005. The ALJ concluded that, since the petition to review had not been sent to the proper address for the Office of Administrative Courts, it was not deemed received upon mailing pursuant to § 8-43-301(2). The ALJ therefore dismissed the petition to review. The claimant filed pro se another petition to review seeking review on the merits.
Section 8-43-301(2) is the exclusive means to perfect an appeal of an ALJ’s order to the Panel. Further, § 8-43-301(8) limits the Panel’s authority to affirm, correct, set aside or remand an ALJ’s order and only where the findings are insufficient to permit appellate review, conflicts in the evidence are not resolved, the findings are not supported by the record, the findings do not support the order or the order is not supported by applicable law.
The claimant’s initial petition to review was filed more than 20 days after the date of mailing of the ALJ’s order issued on September 12, 2005, by being mailed to an address other than the address provided to the parties in the order. The order is final as determined by the ALJ in his order of dismissal, and the ALJ did not err in dismissing the claimant’s earlier petition to review with prejudice. See Buschman, 805 P.2d at 1194-95
(petition to review mailed to address other than that designated by the ALJ is untimely and jurisdictionally defective).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated December 12, 2005, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
_____________ John D. Baird
______________ Thomas Schrant
Ezgimeles Gezahgn, Colorado Springs, CO, Robert Stribling, SuperShuttle International, Denver, CO, Personnel Manager, SuperShuttle International, Scottsdale, AZ, Royal Sun Alliance, c/o Pam Morrison, Risk Enterprise Management, Ltd., Englewood, CO, Kevin C. Smith, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Claimant).
Cheryl A. Martin, Esq., Grand Junction, CO, (For Respondents).