W.C. No. 4-200-729Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
November 7, 1995
FINAL ORDER
The claimant has filed a Petition to Review an order of Administrative Law Judge Henk (ALJ), which denied and dismissed her claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
Based upon the parties’ stipulated facts the ALJ determined that the claimant’s injury occurred during the claimant’s status as the respondent’s “customer” and not as the respondent’s “employee.” Therefore, the ALJ determined that the claimant failed to prove a sufficient nexus between her injury and her employment to render the injury compensable.
The claimant’s Petition to Review only lists general allegations of error. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. (1995 Cum. Supp.). Moreover, the claimant has not filed an appellate brief. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited.
The ALJ’s findings of fact are consistent with the parties’ “Stipulated Facts.” Furthermore, the stipulated facts support the ALJ’s determination that the claimant failed to sustain her burden to prove that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. See Younger v. City and County of Denver, 810 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1991); Popovich v. Irlando, 811 P.2d 379, 383 (Colo. 1991). Consequently, the ALJ did not err in denying the claim. Section 8-42-301 [8-41-301](1), C.R.S. (1995 Cum. Supp.); Valley Tree Service v. Jimenez, 787 P.2d 658 (Colo. App 1990)partially overruled on other grounds 823 P.2d 709 (Colo. 1992) (lack of causal connection between the injury and the employment is fatal to claim for workers’ compensation benefits).
In reaching our disposition, we note the respondent’s motion to dismiss the claimant’s petition for review. However, the Rules of Procedure Part VIII (F), 7 Code Colo. Reg. 1101-3 at 20 (1995), prescribe the procedure for withdrawing a Petition to Review. In the absence of the claimant’s compliance with Rule VIII(F) we decline to presume that the claimant has withdrawn her request for review. Therefore, the respondent’s motion to dismiss is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated July 26, 1995, is affirmed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for review is denied.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate this Order iscommenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO80203, by filing a petition for review with the court, with service of acopy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and allother parties, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order ismailed, pursuant to section 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed November 7, 1995 to the following parties:
Beverly Peterson, 2118 E. Yampa St., Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Montgomery Ward, 2420 East Pikes peak, Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Robert A. Weinberger, Esq. Patti J. Ragland, Esq., 1700 Broadway, Ste., 1910, Denver, CO 80290
(For the Respondents)
BY: _______________________