Garcia Martinez v. ICAO

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 29, 2025
• Docket: 24CA2119
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

24CA2119 Garcia Martinez v ICAO 05-29-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA2119 Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado WC No. 5-154-318

Alida Garcia Martinez,

Petitioner,

v.

Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado, JJNJ Inc., and Employers Preferred Insurance Company,

Respondents.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division III Opinion by JUDGE DUNN Brown and Schock, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 29, 2025

Alida Garcia Martinez, Pro Se

No Appearance for Respondent Industrial Claim Appeals Office

Ruegsegger Simons & Stern, LLC, Jeffrey C. Staudenmayer, Alexandra V. Dietzgen, Denver, Colorado, for Respondents JJNJ Inc. and Employers Preferred Insurance Company ¶1 In this workers’ compensation action, Alida Garcia Martinez

seeks review of an order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (the

Panel) denying her requests for certain benefits. We affirm.

I. Background

¶2 Garcia Martinez worked at a restaurant operated by JJNJ Inc.

and insured by Employers Preferred Insurance Company

(collectively, employer). In August 2020, Garcia Martinez suffered a

work-related injury. Garcia Martinez’s authorized treating

physician diagnosed her with an acute cervical strain and closed

head injury. Employer filed a general admission of liability a few

weeks later.

¶3 After pursuing various treatments, Garcia Martinez underwent

a division-sponsored independent medical examination (DIME) with

Dr. Caroline Gellrick. Dr. Gellrick determined that Garcia Martinez

reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) in December 2021

and assigned Garcia Martinez a seven percent cervical impairment

rating.

¶4 At employer’s request, Garcia Martinez later underwent an

independent medical examination with Dr. F. Mark Paz. Dr. Paz

1 agreed that Garcia Martinez reached MMI in December 2021 but

determined that no cervical impairment rating was appropriate.

¶5 Garcia Martinez requested a hearing before an administrative

law judge (ALJ). The ALJ determined that (1) Garcia Martinez failed

to overcome the DIME physician’s opinion; (2) employer

successfully overcame the DIME physician’s opinion regarding

cervical impairment; and (3) Garcia Martinez reached MMI in

December 2021. The ALJ’s order denied Garcia Martinez’s requests

for additional medical and disability benefits. Finally, the order

denied Garcia Martinez’s request for penalties against employer for

late payments related to mileage and the DIME physician’s fees.

¶6 On appeal, the Panel set aside the ALJ’s decision to the extent

that it terminated all medical maintenance benefits. In all other

respects, the Panel affirmed.

¶7 Garcia Martinez now appeals the Panel’s order.

II. Discussion

¶8 We may set aside the Panel’s decision only if (1) the Panel

acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the decision was

procured by fraud; (3) the findings of fact don’t support the

2 decision; or (4) the decision is erroneous as a matter of law. § 8-74-

107, C.R.S. 2024.

¶9 Because Garcia Martinez appears pro se, “we liberally

construe [her] filings while applying the same law and procedural

rules applicable to a party represented by counsel.” Gandy v.

Williams, 2019 COA 118, ¶ 8. That means we seek to effectuate the

substance, rather than the form, of her arguments. People v. Cali,

2020 CO 20, ¶ 34. But liberal construction doesn’t include

inventing arguments she has not made. See id.; Minshall v.

Johnston, 2018 COA 44, ¶ 21.

¶ 10 Garcia Martinez filed a combined notice of appeal and opening

brief, listing six reasons for her appeal and attaching a letter raising

six objections to certain evidence that may have been admitted at

the hearing before the ALJ. But beyond this, Garcia Martinez’s

submission contains no argument, record citations, legal authority,

preservation statements, or review standards. See C.A.R. 28(a)

(outlining requirements for appellate briefing). And though Garcia

Martinez expresses frustration with the outcome of her case and

broadly asserts that “errors and mistakes” were committed, “the

law” was “not applied” fairly and impartially, and her “rights” were

3 “violated,” she identifies no specific legal or factual errors for us to

review. See Middlemist v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 958 P.2d 486, 495

(Colo. App. 1997) (noting the appellant’s obligation to identify the

specific errors and legal authorities that would support reversal).1

¶ 11 While we sympathize with the many challenges pro se litigants

face in presenting and litigating their claims, pro se parties are

subject to the same laws and procedural rules that apply to

represented litigants. See Cornelius v. River Ridge Ranch

Landowners Ass’n, 202 P.3d 564, 572 (Colo. 2009). And it’s not our

role to develop arguments on Garcia Martinez’s behalf or speculate

as to what her arguments might be. See Gravina Siding & Windows

Co. v. Gravina, 2022 COA 50, ¶ 71. Without any developed

argument explaining why the Panel’s order was wrong, we can’t

disturb it.

1 Garcia Martinez didn’t file a reply brief.We recognize that she submitted two filings after the deadline to file a reply brief had passed, but because those filings were untimely and she sought no leave to file outside the deadline, we don’t consider them. Similarly, though Garcia Martinez references another filing submitted before her opening brief, this court never received that filing. Thus, we are only able to consider Garcia Martinez’s combined notice of appeal and opening brief in resolving her appeal.

4 III. Disposition

¶ 12 We affirm the Panel’s order.

JUDGE BROWN and JUDGE SCHOCK concur.