W.C. No. 4-570-293.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
September 19, 2007.
ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Cannici (ALJ) dated May 16, 2007, which reopened the claim. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order.
In 2003 the claimant suffered an admitted injury. In 2004 Dr. Silva placed the claimant at maximum medical improvement and assigned him a 17 percent whole person rating. The respondents filed a final admission of liability consistent with the 17 percent whole person impairment rating and the claim was subsequently closed.
The issues before the ALJ were the claimant’s petition to reopen and a request by the claimant that penalties be imposed on the respondents. The ALJ granted the claimant’s request to reopen his claim based on a change in condition. The ALJ denied the claimant’s request for penalties. The claimant did not appeal the denial of penalties. The ALJ reserved all issues not resolved in the order for future determination.
Under § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2006, a party dissatisfied with an order “which requires any party to pay a penalty or benefits or denies a claimant a benefit or penalty,” may file a petition to review. Orders which do not require the payment of benefits or penalties, or deny the claimant benefits or penalties are interlocutory and not subject to review. Natkin Co. v. Eubanks, 775 P.2d 88 (Colo.App. 1989). Furthermore, orders which determine liability for benefits, without determining the amount of benefits, do not award or deny benefits as contemplated by this statute, and consequently, are not subject
Page 2
to review. Oxford Chemicals, Inc. v. Richardson, 782 P.2d 843
(Colo.App. 1989); CF I Steel Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 731 P.2d 144
(Colo.App. 1986); Great West Casualty Co. v. Tolbert, (Colo.App. No. 90CA0046, October 4, 1990) (not selected for publication) (order requiring payment of benefits “to which the claimant may be entitled” was not yet reviewable).
The ALJ reopened the claim, but did not award any specific benefits. Rather the ALJ expressly reserved all other issues for future determination. Under these circumstances, the order dated May 16, 2007 does not award or deny any “benefit” within the meaning of §8-43-301(2). Therefore, the ALJ’s order is interlocutory and not currently reviewable. Director of Division of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161 (Colo.App. 1986).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claimant’s petition to review the ALJ’s order dated May 16, 2007 is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________________________ John D. Baird
___________________________________ Thomas Schrant
Page 3
DAN C DEAN, LAIRD, TX, (Claimant).
BITUMINOUS INSURANCE COMPANIES, Attn: LINDA BISHOP, SHAWNEE MISSION, KS, (Insurer).
BENDINELLI LAW OFFICE PC, Attn: DANIEL W. LANG, DENVER, CO, (For Claimant).
BLACKMAN LEVINE LLC, Attn: TAMA L. LEVINE, DENVER, CO, (For Respondents).
Page 1