W.C. No. 4-500-568Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
December 29, 2003
FINAL ORDER
The pro se claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Martinez (ALJ) which denied additional medical and disability benefits. We affirm.
On September 7, 2000 the claimant suffered a compensable injury to her right foot, which was diagnosed as a contusion. The claimant subsequently reported symptoms in other areas of her body which she attributed to the industrial injury. These symptoms included pain in her right hip, right thoracic area, right shoulder, neck and face. The claimant also reported vision loss in the right eye. At hearing, the claimant requested workers’ compensation benefits for treatment of incontinence and cataract surgery.
The ALJ found Dr. Dahahey examined the claimant on April 19, 2001, and diagnosed subjective right foot pain of unknown etiology. Dr. Dahahey also opined the claimant’s vision loss and other symptoms were unrelated to the industrial injury. Crediting the opinions of Dr. Dahahey, the ALJ determined the claimant failed to prove a causal connection between the industrial injury and her other symptoms. Therefore, the ALJ denied the requests for additional medical and disability benefits.
Neither the claimant’s petition to review nor her brief in support of the petition to review contain any specific allegations of error. Instead, the claimant attached documents to the petition for review and requested the ALJ reconsider her requests for additional benefits based on the evidence contained in the documents. We perceive no basis to disturb the ALJ’s order.
Our authority to review the ALJ’s order is defined in § 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2003. 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.
Our review is also limited to the evidence in the record before the ALJ. City of Boulder v. Dinsmore, 902 P.2d 925 (Colo.App. 1995). Consequently, we may not consider the documents attached to the petition to review which were not provided to the ALJ at the hearing on July 16, 2003. See Voisinet v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 757 P.2d 171
(Colo.App. 1988).
Under § 8-42-101(1)(a), C.R.S. 2003, the respondents are liable for medical treatment which is reasonable and necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury. Snyder v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 942 P.2d 1337 (Colo.App. 1997). It is the claimant’s burden to prove a causal connection between the industrial injury and the need for further medical treatment. City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496
(Colo.App. 1997). Whether the claimant has sustained her burden of proof is a question of fact for the ALJ which must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. City of Durango v. Dunagan, 939 P.2d 496 (Colo.App. 1997). Under this standard, it is the ALJ’s sole prerogative to assess the credibility and probative value of the evidence. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 989 P.2d 251 (Colo.App. 1999)
We have reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings of fact. The ALJ’s findings are sufficient to permit appellate review, and the findings indicate that the ALJ resolved conflicts in the evidence based upon his decision to credit the opinions of Dr. Danahey. . See Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992). Further, there is substantial evidence in the medical records to support the ALJ’s finding that the claimant failed to prove the industrial injury caused the medical problems which underlie her request for additional medical and disability benefits.
However, the claimant also contends she was inadequately prepared for the hearing because she had no legal representation and was unable to organize and present the relevant evidence on her own. The claimant’s contentions do not afford us grounds to grant appellate relief.
Due process of law requires that the parties be afforded an opportunity to confront adverse witnesses and present evidence and argument in support of their position. Hendricks v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 809 P.2d 1076 (Colo.App. 1990). A pro se claimant is presumed to know applicable statutes and is required to act accordingly. Paul v. Industrial Commission, 632 P.2d 638 (Colo.App. 1981).
The record reveals the matter was previously continued to afford the claimant an opportunity to obtain legal counsel. Thus, the claimant’s ignorance of the applicable procedural rules which govern the exchange of medical reports does not compel the conclusion the claimant was denied a fair hearing. See Manka v. Martin, 200 Colo. 160, 614 P.2d 875 (1980) (pro se party is held to the same requirements as an attorney).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated, August 13, 2003, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ Kathy E. Dean
______________________________ Robert S. Socolofsky
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. 2003. 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 order were mailed to the parties at the addresses shown below on December 29, 2003 by A. Hurtado.
Caroline Woodson, P. O. Box 472435, Aurora, CO 80047
Renetta Perry, Continental Airlines d/b/a Chelsea Catering, 27550 E. 75th Ave., Denver, CO 80249
Insurance Company of State of Pennsylvania, c/o Dana Brendemuhl, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., P. O. Box 4068, Englewood, CO 80155-4068
Paul D. Feld, Esq. and T. Paul Krueger, II, Esq., 999 18th St., #3100, Denver, CO 80202 (For Respondents)