Garcia Martinez v. ICAO
24CA2119
Colo. Ct. App.May 29, 2025Background
- Alida Garcia Martinez worked for JJNJ Inc. and suffered a work-related injury in August 2020.
- Her authorized treating physician diagnosed her with an acute cervical strain and closed head injury.
- Employer admitted liability, and after treatments, a Division-sponsored Independent Medical Exam (DIME) found her at maximum medical improvement (MMI) in December 2021, assigning her a 7% cervical impairment.
- A subsequent independent medical examination by another physician opined MMI at the same date but determined no impairment was warranted.
- The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled largely against Garcia Martinez, denying additional benefits and penalties but was partially set aside by the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) regarding medical maintenance benefits.
- Garcia Martinez, acting pro se, appealed the Panel’s order without providing specific legal arguments or authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garcia Martinez was entitled to further medical and disability benefits | Garcia Martinez sought additional benefits, alleging errors and violations of her rights. | Employer argued DIME’s MMI determination was correct and impairment rating was not supported. | Court found Garcia Martinez failed to make specific legal arguments and affirmed the Panel’s denial. |
| Whether penalties should be imposed on employer for late payments | Garcia Martinez requested penalties for late payment related to mileage and medical exam fees. | Employer disputed the basis for penalties. | Court upheld denial of penalties. |
| Whether the Panel’s decision to terminate all maintenance benefits was justified | Not clearly articulated beyond general objections. | Panel partially set aside ALJ decision only as to maintenance benefits. | Court affirmed Panel’s order in all respects. |
| General procedural fairness and application of law | Alleged unnamed errors and unfairness. | Defended regularity of proceedings. | Court found no specific errors to review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gandy v. Williams, 2019 COA 118 (Colo. App. 2019) (liberal construction of pro se filings within same procedural rules)
- Middlemist v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 958 P.2d 486 (Colo. App. 1997) (requirement for appellant to identify specific legal error)
- Cornelius v. River Ridge Ranch Landowners Ass’n, 202 P.3d 564 (Colo. 2009) (pro se litigants subject to same procedural rules)
- People v. Cali, 2020 CO 20 (Colo. 2020) (courts effectuate substance, not form, of pro se arguments)