This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 JOHN CONTRERAS, 7 Worker-Appellant, 8 v. NO. 29,861 9 MILLER BONDED, INC., and 10 MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS 11 OF NEW MEXICO WORKERS’ 12 COMPENSATION GROUP FUND, 13 Employer/Insurer-Appellees. 14 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMEPNSATION ADMINISTRATION 15 Terry S. Kramer, Workers ’ Compensation Judge 16 John Contreras 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 Pro Se Appellant 19 Maestas & Suggett, P.C. 20 Paul Maestas 21 Albuquerque, NM 22 for Appellees 23 MEMORANDUM OPINION 24 FRY, Chief Judge. 252 Worker appeals from a compensation order. In this Court’s notice of proposed 1 summary disposition, we proposed to affirm. Worker has filed a memorandum in 2 opposition pursuant to two extensions grante d by this Court. We have considered 3 Worker’s memorandum, and as it does notdemonstrate error, we affirm. 4 Worker raised seven issues in his docketing statement, all of which challenged 5 the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) 6 factual findings. [DS 29-30] “We review workers’ compensation orders using the 7 whole record standard of review.” Leonard v. Payday Prof’l , 2007-NMCA-128, ¶ 10, 8 142 N.M. 605, 168 P.3d 177. “In applying whol e record review, this Court reviews 9 both favorable and unfavorable evidence to determine whether there is evidence that 10 a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support the conclusions reached by the 11 fact finder.” Levario v. Ysidro Villareal Labor Agency , 120 N.M. 734, 737, 906 P.2d 12 266, 269 (Ct. App. 1995). “Where the testimony is conflicti ng, the issue on appeal is 13 not whether there is evidence to support a contrary result, but rather whether the 14 evidence supports the findings of the trier of fact.” Tom Growney Equip. Co. v. 15 Jouett , 2005-NMSC-015, ¶ 13, 137 N.M. 497, 113 P.3d 320 (internal quotation marks 16 and citation omitted). 17 In this Court’s notice of proposed su mmary disposition, we indicated that 18 Worker had not provided the Court with the information needed to evaluate his claims 193 under our standard of review. Worker failed to set out all relevant facts in the 1 docketing statement, including those facts supporting the workers’ compensation’s 2 decision. See Thornton v. Gamble , 101 N.M. 764, 769, 688 P.2d 1268, 1273 (Ct. App. 3 1984) (requiring that the docketing statement provide all relevant facts, including 4 those that are contrary to the appellant ’s position). Accordingly, we proposed to 5 affirm, since Worker had not met hi s burden of establishing error. See Martinez v. Sw. 6 Landfills, Inc. , 115 N.M. 181, 186, 848 P.2d 1108, 1113 (Ct. App. 1993) (“[A]n 7 appellant is bound by the findings of fact made below unless the appellant properly 8 attacks the findings, and . . . the appellant remains bound if he or she fails to properly 9 set forth all the evidence bearing upon the findings.”). 10 In our notice, we explained that in any memorandum in opposition Worker 11 wished to file, Worker should, for each clai m of error, explain in detail what evidence 12 was introduced to the WCJ that was relevant to the WCJ’s factual finding. We stated 13 that Worker should explain if the evidence was documentary evidence, deposition 14 testimony, or live testimony and that he should describe any relevant evidence 15 introduced by Employer/Insurer, even if Worker believed that the evidence was 16 incorrect, unreliable, or untruthful. We also stated that Worker should make clear 17 how he believes that the claimed errors of the WCJ resulted in an incorrect 18 compensation order. 194 In Worker’s memorandum in opposition, he does not provide any of the 1 information that this Court needs in order toevaluate his claim of error. Accordingly, 2 we conclude that Worker has faile d to demonstrate error on appeal. See Hennessy v. 3 Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have 4 repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing 5 the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); see also Bruce v. 6 Lester, 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4, 127 N.M. 301, 980 P.2d 84 (stating that although pro 7 se pleadings will be viewed with a tolerant eye, pro se litigants will not be treated 8 differently than litigants represented by counsel). 9 Therefore, for the reasons stated in this opinion and the notice of proposed 10 summary disposition, we affirm. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

16 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 175 1 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 2