Court Opinion

ID: 9781532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:50:43.575912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:27.691759
License: Public Domain

Judge WEBB
specially concurring.
Because of the great deference that we accord administrative fact finding in workers’ compensation cases, I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the order must be upheld. However, I write separately to express my concern over the level of scrutiny Pinna-col’s conduct received.
Initially, I agree with the majority that a party violates an order by deferring payment based on an appeal without any good faith basis, that good faith must be measured by an objective standard of reasonableness, and that reasonableness requires a rational argument based in law or fact.
Moreover, I accept the majority’s conclusion that, because filing a brief is optional, briefing some but not all issues raised in a petition to review neither violates an order nor shows bad faith of the petitioner. However, because the ALJ’s decision addresses only whether filing a brief is optional or mandatory, I take less comfort than the majority from her conclusion that “Claimant failed to prove that Respondents’ appeal was taken in bad faith.”
In my view, a determination of objective reasonableness based on a rational factual or legal argument requires consideration of the argument that was made, in the petition to review and briefs, as well as the argument that could have been made, based on the record before the first ALJ.
*969Here, Pinnacol’s petition contains no argument concerning the nature of the alleged error in awarding additional TTD benefits. Pinnacol’s briefs do not address this issue. Hence, I am left to speculate whether the ALJ examined the record to determine whether a rational argument could have been made. The Panel’s decision does not resolve this doubt.
The majority logically infers that the ALJ must have credited testimony of Pinnacol’s attorney that the appeal of the TTD benefits award rests on a misreading of documentary evidence by the first ALJ. However, crediting an ad hoc explanation by a participant does not persuade me because the standard is one of objective reasonableness.
In sum, where a party is accused of bad faith because it presents no argument supporting an issue set forth in its petition, I believe objective reasonableness should be determined on the basis of rigorous examination of the record, cf. Lockett v. Garrett, 1 P.3d 206 (Colo.App.1999)(sanctions under C.A.R. 38(d) awarded because appellant’s position lacked record support), and, where appropriate, expert testimony concerning conduct of a reasonable insurer. Unfortunately, here neither side presented such expert testimony, and the ALJ apparently was not asked to examine the record for this purpose.