IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF: NIKOS WARRENCE, Claimant,
v.
BALANCE POINT CONSTRUCTION LLC, Employer,
and
PINNACOL ASSURANCE, Insurer, Respondents.
W.C. No. 5-140-107-001
Colorado Workers Compensation
Industrial Claim Appeals Office
March 30, 2021
RUEGSEGGER SIMONS & STERN LLC, Attn:
CONNIE HULST ESQ, (For Respondents)
FINAL
ORDER
The
claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge
Mottram (ALJ) dated January 6, 2021, that dismissed the
claimant’s appeal of an order imposing a reduction in
benefits due to a safety rule violation and denying the
claimant’s request for biking shoes and a gym
membership. The appeal was found to be untimely. We affirm
the decision of the ALJ
The
claimant injured his right Achilles tendon on June 3, 2020.
The claimant had been affixing a security barrier to an
unfinished window opening in a building under construction
When he stepped on a horizontal piece of the barrier, it gave
way and the claimant fell onto his right leg. The claimant
underwent a surgical repair of his Achilles tendon two weeks
later
The
respondents admitted liability for the injury but asserted a
50% reduction in benefits on the basis of a safety rule
violation pursuant to § 8-42-112(1)(b) C.R.S. The
claimant filed an application for a hearing to challenge the
alleged violation. He also requested a change of physician
and the provision of a home gym or a gym membership and
special biking shoes for use on a stationary bicycle.
Following hearings on October 8 and October 20, 2020, the ALJ
submitted Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and an Order
on October 27, 2020. The certificate of mailing indicated it
was sent electronically to the parties on that date. The
Order authorized the reduction in benefits as justified by a
safety rule violation, determined the respondents had
appropriately offered Dr.
Zwerdlinger
as an authorized treating physician and denied the
claimant’s request for a home gym and biking shoes.
Through October and November, the claimant sent to the Grand
Junction Office of the Office of Administrative Courts (OAC)
numerous emails expressing his dissatisfaction with his
treatment by the respondents and the decision of the ALJ. On
December 5, the claimant requested an extension of time to
file an appeal of the October 27 order. The claimant proceed
on a pro se basis without assistance of legal counsel. A
Petition to Review indicating it was sent to the Office of
Administrative Courts in Denver and to opposing counsel on
December 9, 2020, was filed by the claimant.
On
December 22, 2020, the respondents filed a Motion to Strike
the Petition to Review. The Motion referenced §
8-43-301(2) that specified a...
