Opinion
W.C. No. 4-585-605.
January 26. 2007.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Coughlin (ALJ) dated July 12, 2006, that ordered the claimant and his counsel to pay the sum of $500 as a sanction for failing to fulfill discovery obligations. We affirm.
The matter came before the ALJ upon a motion by the respondents seeking sanctions for the claimant's failure to obey an order compelling disclosure of evidence. The ALJ entered an order dated May 30, 2006 finding that the claimant had committed violations of his discovery obligations and violated discovery orders. The ALJ granted the claimant 10 days to submit evidence in mitigation.
A pleading in the name of the claimant was filed on the issue of mitigation captioned "Claimant's Response to Order Re: Respondents' Motion For Summary Judgement" in which the claimant's counsel suggested that an award of attorney fees in the amount of $800 would be appropriate, but that attorney fees should only be assessed against the claimant and not his counsel. The ALJ after considering the pleading and exhibits found that it appeared that at some point the claimant decided to move from the State of Colorado, and the claimant considered his active participation in the litigation of the claim finished. The ALJ found that the claimant failed to take timely appropriate action to inform the court and opposing parties that he did not wish to proceed with the hearing. Consequently, the ALJ found the claimant continued to have discovery obligations. The ALJ also found that counsel for the claimant failed to take timely and appropriate steps to notify the court and opposing parties of his difficulties with his client in fulfilling those discovery obligations. The ALJ then entered the order dated July 12, 2006 in which she ordered the claimant and his counsel to pay the sum of $500 as a sanction for violations the ALJ found.
The claimant filed a petition to review through his counsel. In the petition to review the petitioner is identified as the claimant. However, the only relief requested is that the order be set aside and a new order entered "limiting sanctions solely to the Claimant." A brief in support of the petition to review was filed and the petitioner was again identified as the claimant. The brief argues that sanctions are applicable only to the claimant and the only relief sought is on behalf of the claimant's counsel. The record does not contain a request by counsel for the claimant to withdraw from representation of the claimant.
In Adams v. Neoplan U.S.A. Corp., 881 P.2d 373 (Colo.App. 1993) the court of appeals concluded that we erred in construing a petition for review as having been filed on behalf of the attorney. In Adams it was ruled that an attorney who seeks to challenge an award of fees must intervene in the case and assert that challenge on appeal. The court of appeals specifically stated that in order to appeal, an attorney must either file a separate notice of appeal or be added as an appellant to the client's notice of appeal.
We further conclude that the claimant's attorney was required to file his own petition to review, but failed to do so. We therefore conclude that counsel for the claimant lacks standing to challenge the ALJ's order. Adams v. Neoplan U.S.A. Corp., supra.
We next address the issue of attorney fees directly against the claimant. The claimant's petition to review and brief in support provide no arguments setting forth a basis on which to interfere with the ALJ's award of attorney fees against him. Therefore, the effectiveness of our review is limited. See Ortiz v. Industrial Commission, 734 P.2d 642 (Colo.App. 1986).
Our authority to review the ALJ's order is defined in § 8-43-301(8) C.R.S. 2006. 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.
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. See Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App. 1992). We do not perceive anything in the order which is not supported by applicable law. Further, we are not required to search for citations and authorities which might support a legal position accruing to the claimant's advantage. See Raygor v. Board of County Commissioners, 21 P.3d 432, 439 (Colo.App. 2000). Therefore, we conclude the claimant has failed to establish grounds to disturb the ALJ's order regarding attorney fees against him and perceive no basis upon which to set aside the ALJ's order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ's order dated July 12, 2006 is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________________________
John D. Baird
___________________________________
Thomas Schrant
Jacob Leonardi, 1550 S. 1000 E. Apt 1601, Clearfield, UT 84015
Kersen Construction, P.O. Box 823, Ouray, CO 71427
Pinnacol Assurance, Harvey D. Flewelling, Esq., 7501 E. Lowry Blvd., Denver, CO 80230
Bendinelli Law Office, Daniel W. Lang, Esq., 11184 Huron Street, Suite 10, Denver, CO 80234 (For Claimant)
Ritsema Lyon, Margaret Bauder Garcia, Esq., 999 18th Street, Suite 3100, Denver, CO 80202 (For Respondents)