W.C. No. 4-456-683Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
July 16, 2001
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Schulman (ALJ) which denied and dismissed his claim for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm.
Hearings were held on January 4, 2001, and February 1, 2001. On March 9, 2001, the ALJ entered an order finding the claimant’s spinal stenosis was not caused or aggravated by his employment with respondent Aristokraft Inc. In support, the ALJ credited the opinions of the respondents’ medical expert, and discredited the opinions expressed by the claimant’s expert.
Although the claimant was represented at the time of the hearings, he filed a pro se petition to review the ALJ’s order. The petition states the claimant received “bad representation.” The petition also states, “they did not even talk about the work, we don’t push or pull anything we pick it up or stack it.” The claimant did not designate a transcript of the hearings in connection with the petition to review, although the record contains a transcript of the January 4 hearing. Further, the claimant did not file a brief in support of the petition to review.
The claimant was required to prove his spinal stenosis was proximately caused “by an injury or occupational disease arising out of and is the course of” his employment. Section 8-41-301(1)(c), C.R.S. 2000; Faulkner v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 12 P.3d 844
(Colo.App. 2000). The question of whether the claimant met the burden of proof is one of fact for determination by the ALJ. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 989 P.2d 251 (Colo.App. 1999). Consequently, we must uphold the ALJ’s determination if supported by substantial evidence of the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2000.
Here, the claimant did not request a transcript, and the transcript contained in the record is incomplete since it does not include testimony from the hearing held on February 1. Consequently, we must presume the ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by the evidence. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800 (Colo.App. 1998). Moreover, the ALJ’s order is supported by the documentary evidence contained in the file. Thus, there is no basis for interfering with the order.
Insofar as the claimant argues that he received inadequate representation, we are without authority to address that issue. Disputes between a client and his attorney involving the sufficiency of the representation are properly addressed to another forum.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated March 9, 2001, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ Bill Whitacre
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:
Robin Sam, 333 W. Ellsworth Ave., #527, Denver, CO 80223
Aristokraft Inc., 4675 Holly St., Unit B, Denver, CO 80216
Gallagher Bassett, P. O. Box 4068, 7935 E. Prentice Ave., #305, Englewood, CO 80155-4068
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, 160 Water St., New York, N Y 10038
James F. Scherer, Esq., and Joe M Espinosa, Esq., 1600 Pennsylvania St., Denver, CO 80203 (For Claimant)
Mark H. Dumm, Esq., 3900 E. Mexico, #1000, Denver, CO 80210 (For Respondents)
BY: A. Pendroy