4-355-119 (1998). BRIAN P. BOHAN.

• Case Date: October 22, 1998
• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 1998. 4-355-119 (1998). BRIAN P. BOHAN INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF BRIAN P. BOHAN, Claimant, v. DIRECT CONNECTION EXECUTIVE COURIER SERVICE, INC., Employer, and HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE, Insurer, Respondents.W. C. No. 4-355-119FINAL ORDER The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ), which determined the claimant suffered a compensable injury and required the respondents to pay benefits and penalties. We affirm. A procedural history of the claim is necessary to understand the issues on review. The pro se claimant sustained work-related injuries during a motor vehicle accident on September 15, 1997. The respondents denied liability. Based upon the evidence presented at a hearing on April 23, 1998, the ALJ found that the claimant was injured while performing courier services for the clients of the respondent-employer. The ALJ also found that the claimant was not substantially free from the respondent-employer's direction and control in performing his job duties, and was not customarily engaged in an independent trade or business related to courier services. Consequently, in an order dated May 15, 1998, the ALJ determined that the claimant was the respondent-employer's employee and not an independent contractor at the time of the injuries. The ALJ's order requires the respondents to provide medical benefits. The ALJ also determined the claimant's average weekly wage and ordered the respondents to pay temporary disability benefits. Further, the ALJ imposed penalties on the respondents for their failure timely to admit or deny liability. The respondents timely petitioned for review of the May 15 order. The petition alleges that the ALJ did not resolve conflicts in the evidence, that the ALJ's finding are not supported by the evidence and that the ALJ's findings do not support the order. Further, the respondents allege the ALJ erroneously denied their "Motion for Reconsideration and Recusal." However, the respondents did not request a transcript or designate an appellate record in connection with their petition to review. A briefing schedule was established which granted the respondents until July 16, 1998, to file a brief in support of the Petition to Review. On July 7, 1998, the respondents filed a "Motion for Extension of Time" to file a brief. In support, the...