W.C. No. 4-470-980Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
July 16, 2001
FINAL ORDER
The claimant, who is now pro se, seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Martinez (ALJ) which denied and dismissed her claim for temporary disability and medical benefits. The claimant argues the ALJ misinterpreted the evidence, and that her attorney did not afford adequate representation at the hearing. We affirm.
The claimant asserted that she sustained compensable neck and back injuries on June 14, 2000, when she was struck on the head by a coemployee. Although the ALJ found an incident did occur on June 14, he determined the claimant suffered only a “glancing blow.” Moreover, the ALJ found the claimant previously sustained neck injuries in a 1990 motor vehicle accident, suffered from preexisting cervical arthritis, and had sought chiropractic treatment for neck pain on April 19, 2000.
Under these circumstances, the ALJ found the claimant failed to prove that her symptoms in June 2000 were the result of the June 14 incident. Therefore, the ALJ denied the claim. The claimant filed a timely petition to review and brief in support. However, the claimant did not request a transcript of the hearing.
The claimant had the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that her need for medical treatment and disability were caused by the June 14 incident. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2000 Faulkner v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 12 P.3d 844 (Colo.App. 2000). The determination of whether the claimant met her burden of proof was one of fact for determination by the ALJ. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 989 P.2d 251 (Colo.App. 1999). Because the issue is factual in nature, we must uphold the ALJ’s order if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8- 43-301(8), C.R.S. 2000.
Here, the claimant disputes the ALJ’s interpretation of the evidence, and his decision to credit testimony favorable to the respondents. However, because the claimant failed to procure a transcript, we must assume the ALJ’s pertinent findings of fact are supported by the testimony received at the hearing. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988). Thus, we may not interfere with the ALJ’s order based on the claimant’s assertions concerning the proper interpretation of the evidence.
Further, we have no statutory authority to determine whether or not the claimant’s attorney properly represented her at the hearing. Disputes between a client and her attorney concerning the adequacy of the representation are properly addressed to another forum.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated February 27, 2001, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ 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 July 16, 2001 to the following parties:
Barbara Hecht, 131 S. San Juan, #16, Montrose, CO 81401
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 16760 S. Townsend, Montrose, CO 81401
American Home Assurance Co., Vicki Briggs, Claims Management, Inc., P. O. Box 1288, Bentonville, AR 72712-1288
James R. Clifton, Esq., and Harvey D. Flewelling, Esq., 5353 W. Dartmouth Ave., #400, Denver, CO 80227 (For Respondents)
BY: A. Pendroy