W.C. No. 4-428-026Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
November 15, 2000
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before us pursuant to the pro se respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration of our order dated October 23, 2000 which affirmed an order of Administrative Law Judge Martinez (ALJ) dated June 12, 2000. The respondent requests a new order based on our consideration of the May 8, 2000 hearing transcript. We deny the motion.
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2000, provides that a petition to review shall be filed within twenty days of the date of the certificate of mailing of the ALJ’s order. Subsection (2) also states that:
“A petitioner shall, at the same time, order any transcript relied upon for the petition to review, arrange with the hearing reporter to pay for the same and notify opposing parties of the transcript ordered.”
We have previously concluded that where a petitioner seeks to designate a transcript as part of the appellate record, §8-43-301(2) requires the petitioner to request the transcript simultaneously with filing the petition to review. See Bohan v. Direct Connection Executive Courier Service, Inc.,
W.C. No. 4-355-119 (October 22, 1998), aff’d. on other grounds, Direct Connection Executive Courier Service, Inc., v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, (Colo.App. No. 98CA2159, May 27, 1999). Further, pro se litigants are presumed to know the applicable law and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their own procedural errors. See Manka v. Martin, 200 Colo. 260, 614 P.2d 875 (1980) Paul v. Industrial Commission, 632 P.2d 638 (Colo.App. 1981).
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing on May 8, 2000, the ALJ determined the claimant suffered a compensable injury and required the respondent to pay workers’ compensation benefits and penalties. The respondent timely filed a petition to review the ALJ’s June 12 award. However, the petition did not request preparation of the May 8 hearing transcript and the record contains no evidence the respondent arranged for payment of the transcript at the time of the filing of the petition to review.
We note that where a transcript is timely requested the ALJ may not rule on the petition to review before the transcript is filed in the record. Section 8-43-301(3), C.R.S. 2000. Here, the ALJ reasonably interpreted the petition to review as not requesting a transcript. Consequently, the ALJ established a briefing schedule on July 7, 2000, and transmitted the record to us for review without a transcript.
Finally, the transcript itself states that it was not completed until November 10, 2000, which was more than two weeks after we affirmed the ALJ’s award of benefits. Under these circumstances, we conclude the respondent’s request to include the transcript in the appellate record is untimely. Therefore, we did not error in adjudicating the petition to review without consideration of the transcript.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondent’s motion for reconsideration 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 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 November 15, 2000 to the following parties:
Gary L. Stonestreet, 648 1/2 Ian Ct., Grand Junction, CO 81504
Nancy James, Mountain States Tree Service, 120 Rerder Mesa Rd., Whitewater, CO 81527
Kathleen Pennucci, Special Funds Unit, Division of Workers’ Compensation — Interagency Mail
BY: A. Pendroy