W.C. No. 4-247-941.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
November 12, 1999.
ORDER.
The respondents seek review an order of Administrative Law Judge Martinez (ALJ) which determined the claimant sustained a worsening of condition causally related to the industrial injury of September 12, 1994. We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 1999, provides that a party dissatisfied with an order “which requires any party to pay a penalty or benefits or denies a claimant any benefit or penalty,” may file a petition to review. Orders which do not require the payment of benefits or penalties, or deny the claimant a benefit or penalty, are interlocutory and not subject to review. Natkin Co. v. Eubanks, 775 P.2d 88 (Colo.App. 1989). An order holding the respondents liable for benefits without determining the amount and type of benefits to be paid is not final and reviewable. See United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, ___ P.2d ___ (Colo.App. No. 99CA0540, June 24, 1999) (order determining that respondents are liable for penalties without determining the amount of penalties is not final and reviewable) Director of the Division of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161
(Colo.App. 1986) (order reopening claim without determining entitlement to benefits was not final and reviewable). We have also determined that orders granting general awards of medical benefits are not reviewable where no specific medical benefits were at issue. Eg. Gonzales v. Public Service Co., W.C. No. 4-131-978
(May 14, 1996).
Here, although the claimant listed the issues of temporary disability and medical benefits in the application for hearing, the ALJ’s order defines the issues as whether the claimant sustained a worsening of condition and, if so, whether such worsening was causally related to the industrial injury. Moreover, the ALJ’s order merely determined that the respondents “are liable for any medical benefits and disability compensation to which [the claimant] may establish entitlement” under the Act. Although there is evidence in the record that some physicians have recommended additional treatment, the transcript does not reflect the claimant was seeking any particular medical benefits, nor did the ALJ award any. Consequently, we conclude that the ALJ’s order is not final and reviewable under § 8-43-301(2), and the respondents’ petition to review must be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s order dated June 11, 1999, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
________________________________ David Cain
________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE An action to modify or vacate this Order may be commenced inthe Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO80203, by filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the court,with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial ClaimAppeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) daysafter the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to section8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1999 Cum. Supp.)
Copies of this decision were mailed November 12, 1999 to the following parties:
Robert E. Miller, 3306 S. Highland, Clifton, CO 81520.
SDI Operating Partners LP d/b/a Harding Glass Industries, 1 Logan Sq., Philadelphia, PA, 19103-6933.
Legion Insurance Co., Attn: Amy Gerelick, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., 7925 E. Prentice Ave., #305, Englewood, CO 80111.
Lauretta A. Martin, Esq., 225 N. 5th St., #1010, P.O. Box 4848, Grand Junction, CO 81502, (For Claimant).
James R. Clifton, Esq., and Harvey D. Flewelling, Esq., 5353 W. Dartmouth Ave., #400, Denver, CO 80227 (For Respondents).
BY: A. Pendroy