W.C. No. 4-599-615.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
August 12, 2005.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Mattoon (ALJ) awarding disfigurement benefits in the amount of $1000. We affirm.
A disfigurement hearing was held on March 31, 2005, at which the claimant appeared in person. The ALJ found that his work-related injury caused scarring of his right shoulder and she awarded the claimant disfigurement benefits in the amount of $1000.
On appeal the claimant asserts that he would not have sustained such extensive scarring had the respondents admitted for surgery more promptly. Specifically, the claimant argues that shortly after the injury his condition could have been cured with arthroscopic surgery; however, the respondents’ delay in providing treatment caused the need for a more extensive surgical procedure. This argument does not afford grounds on which we may grant appellate relief.
Disfigurement benefits are awarded for the observable consequences of an industrial injury. Arkin v. Industrial Commission, 145 Colo. 463, 358 P.2d 879 (1961); Twilight Lounge v. Showers, 732 P.2d 1230 (Colo.App. 1986). Section 8-42-108, C.R.S. 2004 permits an ALJ to award disfigurement benefits up to a maximum of $2000 if the claimant is “seriously, permanently disfigured about the head, face or part of the body normally exposed to public view.” Because the award of disfigurement benefits is based upon the appearance of the scarring, the respondents’ conduct in adjusting the claim is not material to the award.
Section 8-42-108 affords the ALJ great discretion in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for disfigurement. The ALJ views the disfigurement and is in the best position to assess what amount is appropriate. We may not interfere with the ALJ’s determination regarding the amount of the disfigurement award in the absence of an abuse of discretion. An ALJ only abuses her discretion if the order “exceeds the bounds of reason.” Rosenberg v. Board of Education of School District #1, 710 P.2d 1095 (Colo. 1985).
The claimant here does not contest the ALJ’s description of the scar, nor the propriety of the procedures followed. The ALJ viewed the disfigurement and her order reflects consideration of the relevant factors. Consequently, we cannot say that the award of $1000 exceeds the bounds of reason. Arkin v. Industrial Commission, supra.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated March 31, 2005 is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________
Kathy E. Dean
____________________________________
Curt Kriksciun
Gary Quintana, Pueblo, CO, Qwest, Pueblo, CO, Qwest Service Corp., Arvada, CO, Sedgwick CMS, Denver, CO, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Regulatory Information Services, New York, NY.