W.C. No. 4-254-436Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
January 15, 1998
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Atencio (ALJ) which denied and dismissed his request for additional disfigurement benefits. We affirm.
Following a hearing on September 24, 1997, the ALJ found that the claimant sustained permanent bodily disfigurement from an ankle injury consisting of a deep red scar approximately six inches long. The ALJ further found that this scar is the same disfigurement for which the claimant was awarded disfigurement benefits of $1,200 by ALJ Friend on December 5, 1995. Therefore, the ALJ determined that no additional disfigurement benefits are warranted.
On review, the claimant asserts that he has had three ankle surgeries, and that his scar is not the same scar which was the subject of the prior disfigurement award by ALJ Friend. The claimant also contends that the scar is more than six inches in length. Therefore, the claimant requests an additional award of disfigurement benefits.
Contrary to the claimant’s assertion, the pertinent issue is not whether the claimant underwent more than one surgery for the industrial injury. Rather, for purposes of disfigurement benefits, the issue is whether the claimant has more than one permanent scar which is normally exposed to public view. Section 8-42-108 C.R.S. 1997.
Furthermore, § 8-42-108 affords the ALJ great discretion in determining an amount up to $2,000, to award for bodily disfigurement. See Arkin v. Industrial Commission, 145 Colo. 463, 358 P.2d 879 (1961). Accordingly, we may not disturb the ALJ’s order in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Coates, Reid Waldron v. Vigil, 856 P.2d 850 (Colo. 1993). The legal standard on review of an alleged abuse of discretion is whether the ALJ’s order “exceeds the bounds of reason.” Rosenberg v. Board of Education of School District #1, 710 P.2d 1095 (Colo. 1985).
Insofar as the claimant contests the ALJ’s factual determination that the claimant sustained one scar, which is approximately six inches in length, it was the claimant’s obligation to provide a transcript of the disfigurement hearing See § 8-43-213 C.R.S. 1997. The claimant’s Petition to Review did not designate either the September 24, 1997 hearing transcript or the transcript from the disfigurement hearing before ALJ Friend, as part of the appellate record. Nor has either transcript been transmitted to us on review.
Under these circumstances, we must presume that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s finding that the claimant’s scar is six inches long, and that it is the same scarring which was the subject of the prior disfigurement award. Nova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 754 P.2d 800
(Colo.App. 1988). Moreover, in view of these factual determinations we cannot say that the ALJ abused her discretion in refusing to award additional disfigurement benefits. Coates, Reid Waldron v. Vigil, supra. Therefore, we have no basis to interfere with the ALJ’s order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated October 8, 1997, 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, with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to section 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. 1997.
Copies of this decision were mailed January 15, 1998 to the following parties:
Bruce Thomas, 1000 Lincoln, Apt. 12A, Denver, CO 80203
Ready Men Labor, Inc., 1915 E. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO 80206-1301
Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, Laurie A. Schoder, Esq. (Interagency Mail)
BY: ________________________________