W.C. No. 4-190-191Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
February 3, 1997
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Prehearing Administrative Law Judge Klein (PALJ) which approved a settlement agreement. We affirm.
This case has an extensive procedural history. On October 11, 1996, the claimant, then pro se, signed a full and final settlement agreement. On October 21, 1996, the PALJ entered an order approving the settlement.
The claimant then retained counsel who filed a petition to review the PALJ’s order approving the settlement. The petition states that the claimant was not represented at the time of the settlement hearing before the PALJ, and alleges that the claimant was “actually convinced or talked into acceding” to the settlement by the PALJ. The petition further states that it was “incumbent [on the PALJ] to take and make a complete record concerning full advisement of the Claimant as to the rights she would be giving up in return” for the settlement. Finally, the petition alleges that, under these circumstances, the PALJ approved the settlement in excess of his authority.
Subsequently, a briefing schedule was issued, but the claimant did not file a brief in support of her petition to review. Instead, the claimant filed an “Open-Ended Motion for Extension of Time,” requesting that determination of the petition to review the October 21 order be delayed pending a hearing before an ALJ employed by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The purpose of the proposed hearing is to review the circumstances of the settlement with a view towards setting it aside. However, the PALJ denied this motion and transmitted the matter to us by memorandum dated December 17, 1996.
After the matter was transmitted to us, the claimant filed a “Motion for Return of the Record.” The motion states that a hearing is scheduled before the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 9, 1997, and that this hearing will address the “appeal of Judge Klein’s October 21, 1996 order approving settlement.” The motion also states, incorrectly, that the PALJ has not ruled on the “Open-Ended Motion for Extension of Time.” The respondents filed a “response” to the claimant’s motion, and the claimant has filed a “reply to response.”
We assume, arguendo, that an order approving a settlement is reviewable, and not interlocutory, under §8-43-301(2), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.). Because approval of settlement agreements is a discretionary function, our review is limited to determining whether the PALJ abused his discretion. An abuse does not occur unless an order is beyond the bounds of reason, as where it is unsupported by the law or the evidence Coates, Reid Waldron v. Vigil, 856 P.2d 850 (Colo. 1993).
Because the claimant has not filed a timely brief in support of her petition to review, the effectiveness of our review is limited. Nevertheless, we shall consider the points raised in the petition to review.
Insofar as the claimant alleges that the PALJ lacked authority to approve the settlement, she is in error. Section 8-43-207.5(2), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.), explicitly grants PALJs the authority to approve settlement agreements. Thus the PALJ did not act “in excess” of his authority.
Further, we perceive no statutory authority for the claimant’s assertion that it was “incumbent” on the PALJ to make a “complete record concerning full advisement” of the claimant. Section 8-43-207.5 contains no such requirement. Moreover, §8-43-213(1), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.), provides for transcripts or recordings “of all hearings held pursuant to § 8-43-207.” On its face, that requirement does pertain to settlement approval hearings held under § 8-43-207.5(2) and § 8-43-204, C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.) (settlement to be reviewed in person with claimant and approved by ALJ). We are aware of no other statutory requirement which would support the claimant’s contention that she is entitled to a recorded settlement hearing. Further, the record contains no indication that the claimant requested that there be a record of the hearing before the PALJ.
Consequently, the record before us provides no basis for concluding that the PALJ abused his discretion in approving the settlement. Neither the settlement agreement, nor the PALJ’s order approving the settlement, indicate any basis for holding that the proceedings were irregular, or that the PALJ considered some improper factor in approving the settlement. To the contrary, a presumption of integrity and impartiality resides with ALJs in the conduct of their duties. See Ski Depot Rentals v. Lynch, 714 P.2d 516 (Colo.App. 1985).
We deny the claimant’s “Motion for Return of the Record.” Pursuant to § 8-43-301(4), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.), the PALJ had authority to transmit the file to us once the time for submission of briefs had expired. The PALJ did so, and the fact that there may be other proceedings pending before another ALJ in no way alters our authority or duty to review the matter at this time. Further, insofar as the claimant now requests an opportunity to file a brief, the request is denied. The claimant had opportunity to make such a request before the PALJ, and did not do so.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the PALJ’s order dated October 21, 1996, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________________________ David Cain ___________________________________ Bill Whitacre
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate the Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80203, by filing a petition to review with the court, with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date the Order was mailed, pursuant to §§ 8-43-301(10) and 307, C. R. S. (1996 Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed February 3, 1997 to the following parties:
Lyndall K. Orth, 919 Potter Place, Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Southland Corp., 1013 S. 21st. St., Colorado Springs, CO 80904-3705
Kris Dickinson, Kemper National Ins., Co., P.O. Box 5347, T.A., Denver, CO 80217-5347
Robert H. Coate, Esq., Charles W. Yett, Esq., 1225 17th St., Ste. 2800, Denver, CO 80202 (For the Respondents)
Steve Mullens, P.O. Box 2940, Colorado Springs, CO 80901-2940 (For the Claimant)
By: __________________________________________________