W.C. No. 4-605-533.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
January 3, 2006.
ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order dated July 27, 2005 of Administrative Law Judge Felter (ALJ) that granted the claimant’s petition to reopen and determined that her worsened condition was specifically traceable to her compensable injury and not to an intervening injury or occupational disease. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order.
The ALJ found that the claimant suffered an admitted injury to her low back on February 19, 2004. The claimant received medical treatment and was placed at maximum medical improvement (MMI) on March 5, 2004. The ALJ found that the claimant’s current symptoms are all specifically traceable to the injury she suffered on February 19, 2004. The ALJ also found that the claimant’s back condition had worsened since she was placed at MMI. He granted the claimant’s petition to reopen and ordered the respondents to pay for reasonable and necessary medical care. The ALJ reserved all other issues for future determination.
Under § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2005, 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). 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 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). Further, it has been held that orders which merely reopen a claim without awarding specific benefits are interlocutory and not reviewable Director of the Division of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161
(Colo.App. 1986).
The issues before the ALJ were the petition to reopen and a request for medical benefits. The ALJ found the claimant’s medical condition had deteriorated since she was placed at MMI, and that additional medical treatment is necessary to alleviate the effects of the injury. Furthermore, the ALJ did not award any other specific benefits. Rather the ALJ expressly reserved all other issues for future determination. Under these circumstances, the Order 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, supra.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s order dated July 27, 2005, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Curt Kriksciun
____________________________________ Tom Schrant
Maria Rosas, Aurora, CO, Adele Dugan, Kimpton Group, Inc./Hotel Monaco, Denver, CO, Sean Mathews, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Irving, TX, Robert M. Maes, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Claimant).
Jonathan S. Robbins, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).