W.C. No. 4-484-220.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
June 23, 2003.
ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Gartland (ALJ) which determined the claimant overcame the Division-sponsored independent medical examination (DIME) physician’s finding of maximum medical improvement (MMI). We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
The claimant underwent a DIME on the issues of MMI and permanent impairment. The DIME physician determined the claimant reached MMI for a thoracic condition caused by the industrial injury and provided an impairment rating for this condition. However, the DIME physician found the claimant’s cervical condition was not caused by the industrial injury, and, therefore, did not reach the question of whether the claimant was at MMI for this condition.
The claimant sought a hearing to overcome the DIME physician’s finding that the cervical condition was unrelated to the industrial injury, and that she had reached MMI for all injury-related conditions. See Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186 (Colo.App. 2002) (MMI determination inherently requires DIME physician to determine whether there is a causal relationship between industrial injury and a particular medical condition, and DIME physician’s finding on this question must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence). The claimant also endorsed the issue of medical benefits.
On December 17, 2002, the ALJ entered an order finding the claimant overcame the DIME physician’s finding of MMI by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, the ALJ found the claimant proved the cervical condition is causally-related to the industrial injury, and that she is not at MMI for that condition because additional treatment is necessary. However, the ALJ did not award any specific medical benefits, and there is no indication that any specific benefits were requested. Instead, the ALJ entered a general order for the respondents to provide “reasonable and necessary medical treatment,” and reserved all other issues for future determination. The respondents appealed the order challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that the claimant overcame the DIME physician’s opinion concerning the cause of the cervical condition.
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2002, 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 any benefit or penalty, are interlocutory and not subject to immediate review. Natkin Co. v. Eubanks, 775 P.2d 88 (Colo.App. 1989). Further, an award must determine the amount of benefits to be awarded before it may be considered final and reviewable. United Parcel Service v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 988 P.2d 1146 (Colo.App. 1999). In view of these principles, we have frequently held that general awards of medical benefits are not final and reviewable unless the ALJ determines the respondents’ liability for specific treatment. Atkins v. Centennial School District R-1, W.C. No. 4-275-987 (February 7, 2002) Tooley v. Johnson Sons Trucking, W.C. No. 4-376-713 (January 28, 2000). The rationale for these decisions is that the respondents remain free to challenge the reasonableness and necessity of specific
treatments.
Here, the ALJ’s order does nothing more than determine that the claimant sustained a compensable cervical injury. However, the order does not award any specific medical benefits, and reserves all unresolved issues for future consideration. Thus, the respondents have not been ordered to provide any specific medical benefits, and the order is interlocutory for purposes of § 8-43-301(2).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s order dated December 17, 2002, is dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final order.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
________________________________ David Cain
________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
An action to modify or vacate this Order may be commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, by filing a petition for review with the Court, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to § 8-43-301(10) and § 8-43-307, C.R.S. 2002. The appealing party must serve a copy of the petition upon all other parties, including the Industrial Claim Appeals Office, which may be served by mail at 1515 Arapahoe, Tower 3, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202.
Copies of this decision were mailed June 23, 2003 to the following parties:
Frances Thomas, 2221 Ridge Crest Dr., Farmington, NM 87401
Dawn Manning, Mariner Post Acute Network, One Ravinia, #1500, Atlanta, GA 30346
Four Corners Health Care, 2911 Junction, Durango, CO 81301
American Home Assurance Co., c/o Dawn Apodaca-Redden, AIG Claim Services, P. O. Box 32130, Phoenix, AZ 85064
Robert C. Dawes, Esq., 572 E. 3rd Ave., Durango, CO 81301 (For Claimant)
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr., Esq., and Margaret R. Curry, Esq., P. O. Box 22833, Denver, CO 80222 (For Respondents)
By: A. Hurtado