W.C. Nos. 4-319-056, 4-424-183Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 31, 2000
ORDER
The respondent seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Stuber (ALJ) dated November 30, 1999. We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
On September 9, 1996, the claimant suffered a work-related injury to her right knee. The respondent admitted liability in W.C. No. 4-319-056. On May 4, 1999, the claimant was reinjured at work when her right knee “gave out,” and she fell on a display case. The respondent admitted liability for medical benefits in W.C. No. 4-424-183.
The claimant applied for a hearing in both claims on the issues of compensability, temporary total disability and medical benefits. At hearing, the claimant argued that the 1999 injury was the natural consequence of the 1996 injury, and therefore, she argued that the 1999 injury is compensable as a consequence of the 1996 injury claim. The claimant also requested additional temporary disability and medical benefits.
The ALJ determined that the 1999 injury was the proximate result of the 1996 injury. Therefore, the ALJ determined that the claimant suffered a single injury which is compensable in the 1996 injury claim. Further, the ALJ found the claimant is not at MMI for the 1996 injury. Therefore, the ALJ ordered the respondent to pay for “all reasonable and necessary medical expenses” for treatment of the 1996 injury. However, the ALJ denied the claimant’s request for reimbursement of the medical expenses she incurred with Dr. Logalbo, Dr. Bess and Kaiser Permanente. The ALJ also determined that Dr. Burke is an authorized treating physician and ordered the respondent to pay “all of the bills of Dr. Burke after May 15, 1997,” for treatment of the 1996 injury. Finally, the ALJ denied the claim for temporary total disability benefits because he determined the claimant had not sustained any disability causally related to the compensable injury. All other issues were expressly reserved for future determination.
On review the respondent contests the ALJ’s finding that the claimant is not at MMI. The respondent also contends the ALJ erroneously ordered the respondent to pay for Dr. Burke’s medical treatment. We conclude that the contested portion of the order is not currently subject to review.
Under § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 1999, 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).
In the context of medical benefits, the term “authorization” refers to the physician’s legal authority to treat. Mason Jar Restaurant v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 862 P.2d 1026
(Colo.App. 1993). Thus, a finding that treatment is “authorized” is not itself a “medical benefit.” One Hour Cleaners v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 914 P.2d 501 (Colo.App. 1995).
Here, the contested portion of the ALJ’s order does not award or deny the claimant any particular medical benefits within the meaning of § 8-43-301(2). It is undisputed that the claimant has not treated with Dr. Burke. Therefore, the ALJ’s order to pay “all bills” of Dr. Burke does not require the respondent to pay any specific medical benefits. Furthermore, insofar as the ALJ ordered the respondent to pay for all “reasonable and necessary” treatment, he did not determine whether any particular treatment was reasonable and necessary. Therefore, the contested portion of the order does not require the respondent to pay any specific medical bill. See Goble v. Sam’s Wholesale Club, W.C. No. 4-297-675 (March 7, 2000).
In reaching our conclusions we recognize that the ALJ denied the claimant’s requests for temporary disability benefits and medical benefits for treatment by Kaiser Permanente, Dr. Bess and Dr. Logalbo. However, an order may be partially final and partially interlocutory. See Oxford Chemicals Inc., v. Richardson, 782 P.2d 843 (Colo.App. 1986). The respondent does not contest the ALJ’s denial of the disputed medical benefits and the claimant has not filed a petition to review. Further, the ALJ’s finding concerning MMI has not resulted in any order which requires the respondent to pay any benefit. Thus, the ALJ’s order which denied certain medical and temporary disability benefits does not render the contested portion of the order ripe for review.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondent’s petition to review the ALJ’s order dated November 30, 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 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. 1999. 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 May 31, 2000
to the following parties:
Shirley Caruso, 3101 Gray St., Wheat Ridge, CO 80214
Super K-Mart, 10555 W. Colfax Ave., Lakewood, CO 80215
Dee Dee Gutierrez, McMillan Claim, 2785 N. Speer Blvd., #110, Denver, CO 80211
Chris L. Ingold, Esq., 501 S. Cherry St., #500, Denver, CO 80246 (For Claimant)
Lynn D. Petersen, Esq., 1777 S. Harrison St., #1110, Denver, CO 80210 (For Respondents)
BY: A. Pendroy