W.C. No. 3-895-533Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
June 14, 1999.
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of former Administrative Law Judge Wells (ALJ) which denied his petition to reopen and request for disfigurement benefits. We affirm.
In February 1988 the claimant suffered a compensable injury. The claim was subsequently closed by the respondents’ filing of an uncontested Final Admission of Liability dated March 2, 1989. The Final Admission states “Disfigurement Benefits: NONE.”
In August 1997 the Division of Workers’ Compensation advised the claimant that he might be entitled to disfigurement benefits. On June 15, 1998, the claimant filed a petition to reopen on the grounds of error, and alleged that he was never notified of his right to disfigurement benefits. The claimant also submitted photographs for purposes of a disfigurement award.
On August 12, 1998, ALJ Wheelock awarded disfigurements benefits of $1,200. The order provided that it was final unless an application for hearing was filed within twenty days of the date of the order. The respondents’ timely applied for a hearing and asserted that the disfigurement award is barred by the statute of limitations.
In an order dated November 30, 1998, the ALJ determined the claim is barred from reopening under the statute of limitations provided in § 8-43-303, C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.)[amended in 1997]. Consequently, the ALJ denied and dismissed the claim for disfigurement benefits.
Our authority to review the ALJ’s order is defined in §8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 1998. That statute precludes us from disturbing the ALJ’s order unless the ALJ’s findings of fact are insufficient to permit appellate review, the ALJ has not resolved conflicts in the evidence, the record does not support the ALJ’s findings, the findings do not support the order, or the order is not supported by the applicable law.
On review the claimant makes general allegations about his 1998 request for disfigurement benefits and the filing of his petition to review of the order dated November 30, 1998. The claimant also renews his allegation that he was not informed of his right to disfigurement benefits prior to 1997. However, the claimant does not allege any specific error on the part of the ALJ. Consequently, the claimant has failed to assert grounds which afford us a basis to grant appellate relief under §8-43-301(8).
Nor do we perceive any basis for disturbing the ALJ’s order. The ALJ’s findings are sufficient to permit appellate review, and they resolve any conflicts in the evidence. The findings are also supported by substantial evidence in the record. Further, the findings support the order, and the order is consistent with the applicable law. See Ortiz v. Charles J. Murphy Co., 964 P.2d 595 (Colo.App. 1998).
If a claim is closed no further benefits may be awarded without an order reopening the claim. Brown Root, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 833 P.2d 780 (Colo.App. 1991). Under § 8-43-303 an ALJ may reopen a claim on the grounds of error or mistake within six years of the date of injury or within two years of the date benefits were last due and payable, whichever is longer.
Here, the claimant’s Petition to Reopen was not filed within the time period provided by § 8-43-303. Consequently, the ALJ correctly determined that the claim is barred from reopening. Furthermore, because the claim is barred from reopening, the ALJ did not err in denying the request for disfigurement benefits See Burke v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 905 P.2d 1
(Colo.App. 1994).
Moreover, there is no statutory authority requiring the Division or the respondents to notify the claimant of all potential benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act. To the contrary, 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). Consequently, the claimant’s assertion that he was unaware of his right to disfigurement benefits prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations does not compel a contrary result.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated November 30, 1998, 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. 1998.
Copies of this decision were mailed June 14, 1999 the following parties:
David G. Williams, 6520 Arequa Ridge Lane, Colorado Springs, CO 80919
LaTrelle Miller, Esq., City of Colorado Springs Fire Department, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, CO 80901
Raymond F. Callahan, Esq., 3464 S. Willow St., Denver, CO 80231-4566
Laurie Schoder, Esq., Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority (Interagency Mail) (For Respondents)
BY: A. Pendroy