Case Name: ONE HOUR CLEANERS and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF the STATE OF COLORADO and Susan M. Vickery, Respondents
Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1995-12-21
Citations: 914 P.2d 501
Docket Number: No. 95CA0178
Parties: ONE HOUR CLEANERS and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF the STATE OF COLORADO and Susan M. Vickery, Respondents.
Judges: KAPELKE, J., concurs.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 914
Pages: 501–508

Head Matter:
ONE HOUR CLEANERS and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF the STATE OF COLORADO and Susan M. Vickery, Respondents.
No. 95CA0178.
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. IV.
Dec. 21, 1995.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1996.
Paul S. Edwards & Associates, Fotios M. Burtzos, Christina M. Middendorf, Colorado Springs, for Petitioners.
Steven U. Mullens, P.C., Steven U. Mul-lens, Colorado Springs; Wilcox & Ogden, Ralph Ogden, Denver, for Respondent Susan M; Vickery.
No Appearance for Respondent Industrial Claim Appeals Office.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Judge NEY.
In this workers' compensation casé, petitioners, One Hour Cleaners, and its insurer, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, seek review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Panel (Panel) ordering petitioners to pay for thermographic diagnostic procedures performed on Susan Vickery (claimant). We affirm.
Claimant sustained an industrial injury in the course of her employment. Her authorized treating physician referred her to another doctor for treatment of reflex sympathetic dystrophy. Petitioners refused to authorize the doctor and claimant petitioned for a change of authorized treating physician. After mediation and a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) authorized the change of physician and ordered petitioners to pay for all reasonable and necessary services provided by the physician.
Claimant's authorized physician determined that thermographic studies would aid in the diagnosis of claimant's reflex sympathetic dystrophy. Petitioners refused to pay for the thermography, but did not seek a medical utilization review of the recommended procedure. Claimant sought a hearing on the specific issue of petitioners' responsibility to pay for the thermography.
Petitioners filed a motion asserting that the scheduled hearing should be vacated because thermography was a medical benefit and there had been no mediation as to its authorization. Apparently, this motion was ignored and the matter proceeded to a hearing.
At the hearing, petitioners requested that the ALJ take judicial notice of several documents, including: (1) a final notice of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) published in the Federal Register announcing the withdrawal of Medicare coverage for thermography for all indications; (2) a 1992 "advisory statement" of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons stating its belief, as of the date of the statement, that thermography as a clinically useful diagnostic or prognostic test in orthopedic surgery could not be scientifically justified; (3) a 1993 resolution of the American Medical Association stating its policy that, as of the resolution's date, the use of thermography for diagnostic purposes could not be recommended; and (4) an unsigned resolution of the American College of Radiology stating its position that "thermography has not been demonstrated to have value as a screening, diagnostic, or adjunctive imaging tool." The ALJ ruled that she would not take judicial notice of these documents because judicial notice could only be taken of matters that are not subject to reasonable dispute.
Finally, the ALJ refused to allow petitioners to call an expert witness on the ground that they had failed to endorse the witness properly. Petitioners made an oral offer of proof of the expert's testimony.
The ALJ ruled that the thermography was reasonable and necessary and ordered petitioners to pay for the procedure. The Panel affirmed.
I.
Petitioners argue that the thermo-graphic studies fall under the category of "authorized medical benefits" and therefore the issue should have been mediated prior to the hearing. We disagree.
During the period relevant to this case, the Workers' Compensation Act mandated mediation for disputes involving a claimant's average weekly wage, changes in a claimant's health care provider, or authorized medical benefits. Colo. Sess. Laws 1991, ch. 219, § 8-43-205(1) at 1316.
In workers' compensation proceedings, "authorization" means "a physician's status as the health care provider legally authorized to treat an injured worker." Mason Jar Restaurant v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 862 P.2d 1026, 1029 (Colo.App.1993). Thus, contrary to petitioners' contention, "authorization" refers to the treating physician rather than the particular medical treatment or procedure recommended by the authorized treating physician.
Petitioners' construction of "authorized medical benefits" would mean that each medical procedure proposed by an authorized treating physician and objected to by an insurer would be subject to mediation. Such a result would be contrary to the legislative purpose of the workers' compensation scheme, which is to assure quick and efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits to injured workers without litigation. See § 8-40-102(1), C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.).
We agree with the Panel that, because "authorized medical benefits" refers to the legal authority of a provider to deliver care to a claimant, there was no requirement to mediate the issue.
II.
Petitioners next contend that the ALJ erred in refusing to take judicial notice of the positions of a federal agency and three medical professional organizations concerning the effectiveness of thermography. We find no error requiring reversal.
CRE 201(b) provides that, for an adjudicative fact to be subject to judicial notice, it "must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."
Judicial notice may be taken of matters of public record and of common knowledge to an interested public. See In Re Interrogatory by Governor Romer, 814 P.2d 875 (Colo.1991). Also, rules and regulations promulgated by a governmental agency pursuant to the agency's statutory authority and published in an official state publication, such as Code of Colorado Regulations, may be judicially noticed. Westfall v. Town of Hugo, 851 P.2d 299 (Colo.App.1993).
However, judicial notice is to be used cautiously and only in cases in which the matters to be so noticed are of such common knowledge that they cannot reasonably be disputed. Prestige Homes, Inc. v. Legouffe, 658 P.2d 850 (Colo.1983).
One of the documents presented for judicial notice by petitioners, was published in the Federal Register by a federal agency pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 1507 (1988). That document was a final notice of the HCFA announcing the withdrawal of Medicare coverage of thermography for all indications based on HCFA's determination that ther-mography is not effective in diagnosing or treating illness or injury. 57 Fed.Reg. 54799 (November 20, 1992).
44 U.S.C. § 1507 provides:
A document required by section 1505(a) of this title to be published in the Federal Register is not valid as against a person who has not had actual knowledge of it until the duplicate originals or certified copies of the document have been filed with the Office of the Federal Register and a copy may be available for public inspection as provided by section 1503 of this title. Unless otherwise specifically provided by statute, filing of a document, required or authorized to be published by section 1505 of this title, except in cases where notice by publication is insufficient in law, is sufficient to give notice of the contents of the document to a person subject to or affected by it. The publication in the Federal Register of a document creates a rebuttable presumption — •
(1) that it was duly issued, prescribed, or promulgated;
(2) that it was filed with the Office of the Federal Register and made available for public inspection at the day and hour stated in the printed notation;
(3) that the copy contained in the Federal Register is a true copy of the original; and
(4) that all requirements of the chapter [44 U.S.C.S. § 1501 et seq.] and the regulations prescribed under it relative to the document have been complied with.
The contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed and without prejudice to any other mode of citation, may be cited by volume and page number.
Pursuant to this federal statute, a court is mandated to take judicial notice that a certain document exists, contains certain statements, and was duly published in the Federal Register. However, a court is not required to take judicial notice of the truth of the statements contained in the Federal Register document. See Gilbert v. State, 218 Cal.App.3d 234, 266 Cal.Rptr. 891 (1990)(ju-dicial notice of documents goes to authenticity and contents of documents, not to truth of their contents); Joslin v. H.A.S. Insurance Brokerage, 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 228 Cal.Rptr. 878 (1986)(taking judicial notice of document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning).
Accordingly, under this federal statute, the ALJ may have been required to take judicial notice of the fact that Medicare funding for thermography had been withdrawn and of the fact that HCFA, based on certain information available to it, found thermography to be. not effective in diagnosing or treating illness or injury. Therefore, if the contested issue before the ALJ concerned whether Medicare would pay for thermography or whether HCFA had taken a position on ther-mography, judicial notice of these two facts would have been relevant and required. However, the dispute here turned on whether thermography was reasonable and necessary for claimant's treatment. Therefore, the ALJ could not take judicial notice of the disputed fact that thermography was ineffective. See CRE 201.
Alternatively, if, by virtue of 44 U.S.C. § 1507, the ALJ should have taken judicial notice of the Federal Register document for its limited probative value, any error resulting therefrom is harmless. The two facts that could be judicially noticed, ie., HCFA's refusal to make Medicare payments for thermography and its conclusion regarding the effectiveness of thermography, were not probative of whether thermography was reasonable and necessary for claimant's treatment. Therefore, refusing to take judicial notice of the Federal Register document did not prejudice petitioners.
We also reject petitioners' declaration that documents published in the Federal Register are the "law of the land." This sweeping declaration may apply to federal regulations duly promulgated by an agency in accordance with its statutory authority. However, the regulation at issue here is not a legally binding statement as to the value of thermography.
Petitioners also contend that the three reports or policy statements issued by medical organizations should have been judicially noticed because such documents were in the court file. We disagree.
We recognize that a court can take judicial notice of its own records and files. Sakal v. Donnelly, 30 Colo.App. 384, 494 P.2d 1316 (1972). However, these documents did not state facts that can be judicially noticed under CRE 201. The statements supported petitioners' position on the very issue the parties were litigating and do not set out facts that are generally known or capable of accurate and ready determination as required under CRE 201. See 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2567 (1981).
Additionally, merely attaching the documents to a pleading that becomes part of the court's file does not make the contents of those documents subject to judicial notice.
Thus, we conclude that the ALJ did not err in denying petitioners' request to take judicial notice of the document contained in the Federal Register and the three policy statements or reports of the medical organizations.
III.
Petitioners' final contention is that the ALJ erred by denying petitioners' request to present testimony by an unendorsed expert witness. We disagree.
Petitioners listed their expert in their pre-hearing statement. However, they did not endorse this expert in the response to application for hearing or in any other pleading or motion. Petitioners argue that listing the witness in the prehearing statement is a sufficient endorsement and that, by excluding the testimony of the expert, the ALJ wrongly elevated form over substance. We disagree.
As pertinent here, adjudication Rules for Workers' Compensation Hearings Rule VIII(A)(5) precludes a party from adding a witness after filing an application for hearing or a response to an application except upon approval of an ALJ for good cause shown. Department of Labor & Employment Rule YIII(A)(5), 7 Code Colo. Reg. 1101-3. Further, the reliance on the prehearing statement and on some "understanding" based on discussions which took place at the prehear-ing conference cannot substitute for that which must appear of record. See Standard Metals Corp. v. Gallegos, 781 P.2d 142 (Colo.App.1989)(where claimant fails to follow proper procedure, findings of Panel will not be disturbed).
A tribunal has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of expert testimony and appellate courts may not overturn a ruling unless it is manifestly erroneous. Campbell v. People, 814 P.2d 1 (Colo.1991). An ALJ is accorded similar discretion in a workers' compensation proceeding. See § 8-43-210, C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.)(rules of evidence of district courts applicable in workers' compensation hearings).
The ALJ here correctly ruled that a pre-hearing statement does not have the effect of an order and correctly informed petitioners' counsel that witnesses are endorsed only by order from an ALJ or from the prehearing ALJ, or from approved amendments to the application for a hearing or the response to application for a hearing.
Accordingly, we perceive no abuse of discretion.
IV.
We deny claimant's requests for an award of attorney fees based on the frivolous and groundless nature of the appeal. We conclude that petitioners' contentions have some rational basis in law and, therefore, are not frivolous. See Lego v. Schmidt, 805 P.2d 1119 (Colo.App.1990).
The order is affirmed.
KAPELKE, J., concurs.
TAUBMAN, J., dissents.