W.C. No. 4-272-341Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
November 13, 1996
The pro se claimant seeks review of a final order of Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ) which denied his claim for benefits based on hypertension and stomach problems. We affirm.
The claimant filed a claim for benefits based on hypertension and stomach disorders which first appeared in February 1981. The ALJ found that the claimant was off work as a result of these disorders, but the claimant failed to prove a causal relationship between his employment and the physical problems. Consequently, the ALJ denied the claim.
In support of this ruling, the ALJ cited a medical report of Dr. John Harris, dated May 20, 1981. In this report, Dr. Harris diagnosed the claimant as suffering from “uncontrolled hypertension.” Dr. Harris also stated that there was a “possibility” that the claimant was suffering from a “personality disorder . . . in view of his anxiety resulting from job related activities.” However, the ALJ found that Dr. Harris did not “comment on any possible source to [sic] the uncontrolled hypertension.”
The ALJ also relied on a psychiatric report authored by Dr. Schiff on March 21, 1989. Dr. Schiff stated that the claimant was suffering from various medical problems, including stomach symptoms. However, Dr. Schiff opined that none of these problems were associated with the claimant’s duties of employment, but were caused by various psychiatric disorders.
On review, the claimant contends that the ALJ should not have considered Dr. Schiff’s report because it was written long after the events in question. However, it was the claimant himself who offered Dr. Schiff’s report into evidence. Consequently, he is not now in a position to object that the ALJ considered this evidence. See CRE 103 (a)(1) (error may not be predicated on the admission of evidence absent a timely objection).
The claimant also contends that the ALJ misinterpreted the report of Dr. Harris because Dr. Harris attributed the hypertension to the possibility of a work-related personality disorder. However, interpretation of medical evidence is a matter within the fact-finding authority of the ALJ. Rockwell International v. Turnbull, 802 P.2d 1182 (Colo.App. 1990). We have reviewed the medical report and conclude that the ALJ was not compelled to infer that Dr. Harris was drawing any correlation between the claimant’s hypertension and the “possibility” of a personality disorder. To the contrary, the report can be read as treating these as completely separate diagnoses.
The claimant has also made allegations concerning irregularities in the prehearing procedure. However, at the time of the hearing, the claimant did not object to any of these procedures, or establish that he was prejudiced by them. Therefore, he may not raise the issues for the first time on appeal. Apache Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 717 P.2d 1000
(Colo.App. 1986).
Insofar as the claimant has made other arguments, they do not establish any reversible error in the ALJ’s order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated August 2, 1996, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ David Cain
______________________________ Bill Whitacre
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate theOrder is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14thAvenue, Denver, Colorado 80203, by filing a petition to reviewwith the court, with service of a copy of the petition upon theIndustrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, withintwenty (20) days after the date the Order was mailed, pursuant to§§ 8-43-301(10) and 307, C. R. S. (1996 Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed November 13, 1996 to the following parties:
Raymond Snell, P.O. Box 39778, Denver, CO 80239 (Pro Se)
City County of Denver, 1445 Cleveland Pl., Rm. 200, Denver, CO 80202-5306
City County of Denver, 110 16th St., Denver, CO 80202-5202
John R. Palermo, Esq., City County of Denver, 1445 Cleveland Pl., Rm. 303,
Denver, CO 80202-5306
By: ____________________________