This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 RANDY MATA, 2 Worker-Appellant, 3

v. No. 35,814 4 PANHANDLE OILFIELD SERVICES 5 and TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., 6 Employer/Insurer-Appellees. 7 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 8 Reginald C. Woodard, Workers’ Compensation Judge 9 Randy Mata 10 Raton, NM 11 Pro Se Appellant 12 Allen, Shepherd, Lewis & Syra, P.A. 13 Kimberly A. Syra 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellees 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 HANISEE, Judge. 182 {1} Worker Randy Mata (Worker) appeal s from the Workers’ Compensation 1 Administration’s (WCA) compensation order awarding Worker temporary total 2 disability benefits and perman ent partial disability benefits for psychological injuries, 3 and denying permanent partial disability benefits for Worker’s alleged physical 4 injuries. [RP 117; DS unnumbered 1] This Court issued a notice proposing to affirm 5 based on Worker’s failure to demonstrate error below. Employer/Insurer Panhandle 6 Oilfield Services and Travelers Insurance Co. (Employer/Insurer), filed a 7 memorandum in support, and Worker filed a memorandum in opposition, both of 8 which we have duly considered. Remaini ng unpersuaded by Worker, we now affirm. 9
{2} Worker raised three central issues inhis docketing statement: (1) Worker was 10 denied a fair “trial,” (2) Worker receive d ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) 11 numerous findings of the WCA were err oneous. [DS unnumbered 1–3] In our notice, 12 we proposed to hold Worker failed to demonstrate any error in the manner in which 13 the hearing was conducted or that the hearing was conducted unfairly [CN 3-4]; 14 Worker is not entitled to effective assist ance of counsel in a WCA proceeding [CN 5- 15 6]; and Worker’s assertion of contrary facts did not provide a basis for reversal of the 16 WCA’s order. [CN 6-7] In his memorandum in opposition, Worker does not contest 17 our proposed holdings as to the first two issues. In response to our proposed 18 affirmance based on the WCA’s factual findi ngs, Worker continue s to cite contrary 193 facts and attached numerous exhibits to his memorandum in opposition. [MIO 1-2] 1 As we explained in our notice, “[w]herethe testimony is conflicting, the issue on 2 appeal is not whether there is evidence to support a contraryresult, but rather whether 3 the evidence supports the findings of the trier of fact.” Tom Growney Equip. Co. v. 4 Jouett , 2005-NMSC-015, ¶ 13, 137 N.M. 497, 113 P.3d 320 (internal quotation marks 5 and citation omitted). [CN 7] Therefore, Worker’s continued argument for reversal 6 based on contrary facts, w ithout demonstrating why the evidence in the whole record 7 does not support the WCA’s finding, does not provide a basis for reversal. 8
{3} We point out the Rules of Appellate Procedure do not provide for the 9 presentation of additional evidence as exhibits to a memorandum in opposition. See 10 Rule 12-210(F) NMRA (providing the requirements for a memorandum in 11 opposition). Furthermore, while this Court “review[s] workers’ compensation orders 12 using the whole record standard of review[,]” Leonard v. Payday Prof’l , 2007- 13 NMCA-128, ¶ 10, 142 N.M. 605, 168 P.3d 177, it is not clear whether Worker’s 14 proposed exhibits were presented to th e WCA and part of the record below. See 15 Campos Enters. v. Edwin K. Williams & Co. , 1998-NMCA-131, ¶ 12, 125 N.M. 691, 16 964 P.2d 855 (stating an appellatecourt reviews only matters that were presented to 17 the trial court); see also Kepler v. Slade , 1995-NMSC-035, ¶ 13, 119 N.M. 802, 896 18 P.2d 482 (“Matters outside the record presen t no issue for review.” (internal quotation 194 marks and citation omitted)). We therefore decline to consider Worker’s proposed 1 exhibits and hold the WCA’s order was supported by evidence in the whole record. 2 We note we would come to the same conclu sion even if we considered the exhibits, 3 as they are simply contrary eviden ce to the evidence relied on by the WCA. 4
{4} Accordingly, for the reasons explaine d above and in this Court’s notice of 5 proposed disposition, we affirm. 6
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

8 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 9 WE CONCUR: 10

11 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 12

13 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 14