W.C. No. 4-604-588.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
December 9, 2004.
FINAL ORDER
The pro se respondent seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Harr (ALJ) which determined the claimant sustained a compensable injury and awarded medical benefits, temporary disability benefits, and a penalty for failure to insure. We affirm.
A hearing on the claim for benefits was held on June 29, 2004. The respondent failed to appear. Based on the claimant’s testimony, the ALJ found the claimant sustained a compensable injury when he twisted his ankle on the job site. The ALJ awarded benefits and penalties for the respondent’s failure to insure.
The respondent filed a petition to review alleging he can produce witnesses who will testify that the claimant injured himself at lunch while off the job. The respondent requested a transcript, but failed to procure it in a timely fashion.
Where, as here, a party fails to procure a transcript, we must presume the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1988). Further, the ALJ’s order reflects a correct application of the law to the facts. Consequently, there is no basis on which to interfere with the order. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2004.
Insofar as the respondent contends the ALJ was obligated to grant another hearing for the presentation of additional evidence, we disagree. It is true that when ruling on a petition to review, the ALJ has authority to permit the presentation of additional evidence. Section 8-43-301(5), C.R.S. 2004. The ALJ also has the authority for good cause shown to grant a continuance for the taking of additional evidence. Section 8-43-207(1)(j), C.R.S. 2004.
However, the ALJ’s authority to permit additional evidence after the conclusion of the hearing is discretionary. Consequently, we may not interfere with the ALJ’s implicit denial of the respondent’s request unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Dee Enterprises v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 89 P.3d 430 (Colo.App. 2003); IPMC Transportation Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 753 P.3d 803 (Colo.App. 1988).
The respondent failed to appear for the hearing, and he does not assert that the witnesses he now wishes to present are newly-discovered or were otherwise unavailable at the time of the hearing. Although it is conceivable these witnesses could be outcome determinative, that factor must be weighed against the respondent’s failure to appear and the inconvenience and cost to the claimant if another hearing is held. Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated June 29, 2004, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________ David Cain
____________________ Dona Halsey
David J. Pemberton, Thornton, CO, Jim Snook d/b/a Old Outlaw Construction, Thornton, CO, Jim Snook, Thornton, CO.