W.C. No. 4-411-851Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
February 6, 2001
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Harr (ALJ) which denied the claim for temporary total disability benefits from April 8, 1998, through April 21, 2000. We affirm.
The ALJ found the claimant sustained a compensable foot injury in July 1997. In February 1998, the treating physician imposed restrictions which precluded the claimant from continuing his regular employment as a meter reader. Nevertheless, the claimant continued performing his regular duties until April 8, 1998, when the employer notified the claimant he could no longer continue in view of his restrictions. However, the ALJ found on conflicting evidence that the employer offered the claimant an opportunity to continue working at a job within his restrictions. The claimant declined to continue working, and again declined to accept the offer in July 1998. The claimant was formally terminated from employment in March 1999.
The ALJ found the claimant failed to prove his initial entitlement to temporary disability benefits because he failed to prove that he left work as a result of the injury. To the contrary, the ALJ found the claimant voluntarily left work in April 1998 when he declined to perform the modified duties offered by the employer. Moreover, the ALJ found the claimant failed to establish that any subsequent wage loss was to some degree caused by the industrial injury. In support, the ALJ noted the claimant did not offer any evidence that he sought employment after April 8, or that he was unable to find employment because of his work restrictions.
The claimant filed a petition to review containing general allegations of error involving the sufficiency of the evidence and the correctness of the ALJ’s legal conclusions. The claimant did not file a brief in support of the petition to review. Consequently, the effectiveness of our review is limited.
Our review of the record demonstrates the ALJ’s pertinent findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Therefore, these findings must be upheld on review. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2000. Moreover, we perceive no error in the ALJ’s application of the law to the facts. To the contrary, the ALJ’s order is fully in accord with principles announced in PDM Molding, Inc. v. Stanberg, 898 P.2d 542
(Colo. 1995) (if claimant is “at fault” for the loss of post-injury employment out of which the injury arose, claimant may recover temporary disability benefits only if he proves the subsequent wage loss was to “some degree” caused by the industrial injury).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated July 12, 2000, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
________________________________ David Cain
________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
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 February 6, 2001 to the following parties:
Dennis Smith, 12890 E. 124th Ave., Henderson, CO 80640
Joni Wheeler, Public Service Company of Colorado, 550 15th St., 15th floor, Denver, CO 80202
New Century Energies, P. O. Box 8004, Denver, CO 80201
Dennis E. Valentine, Esq., 1563 Gaylord St., Denver, CO 80206 (For Claimant)
Michael A. Perales, Esq., 999 18th St., #3100, Denver, CO 80202 (For Respondent)
BY: A. Pendroy