W.C. No. 4-574-829Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
February 10, 2004
FINAL ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Mattoon (ALJ) dated September 29, 2003. We dismiss the Petition to Review for lack of a final order.
On March 11, 2003, the claimant suffered admitted injuries to his neck, head and back. As a result the claimant was temporarily totally disabled. On March 17, 2003, an authorized treating physician (ATP) released the claimant to return to regular employment and placed the claimant at maximum medical improvement (MMI). However, the ATP withdrew the MMI determination effective April 1, 2003, based on the claimant’s complaints that the industrial injury aggravated his pre-existing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and caused him to experience a sleep disorder and flash-backs. The ATP recommended a psychological evaluation to determine the work-relatedness of the PTSD symptoms. The respondents refused to authorize the psychological evaluation.
The matter came before the ALJ for a hearing on the issues of temporary disability benefits, MMI and the “relatedness of medical benefits” for treatment of the PTSD. The ALJ awarded temporary disability benefits from March 12, 2003 through March 16, 2003, plus statutory interest all benefits not paid when due. However, the ALJ determined the claimant is barred from receiving temporary disability benefits after March 16, 2003, by operation of § 8-42-105(4), C.R.S. 2003. The ALJ also determined the claimant has not been placed at MMI by an ATP. However, the ALJ was “unable to determine whether Claimant’s accident aggravated his PTSD symptoms based on the evidence presented at hearing.” (Discussion and Conclusions of Law 4). Therefore, the ALJ did not determine whether medical benefits to treat the PTSD are compensable and expressly reserved that issue for future determination. See §8-43-207(1)(j), C.R.S. 2003.
On review the respondents contend the ALJ’s finding that “insufficient persuasive evidence was presented at hearing to demonstrate that Claimant’s accident caused any aggravation of his PTSD symptoms,” compelled the ALJ to deny the request for medical benefits to treat the PTSD. The claimant contends the ALJ “did not err in ordering Respondents to pay for a psychological evaluation” ordered by the ATP. We conclude the contested portion of the order is not currently reviewable.
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2003, provides that 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). Instead, interlocutory orders are reviewable when appealed incident to a final order. American Express v. Industrial Commission, 712 P.2d 1132
(Colo.App. 1985). The legislative purpose underlying the restrictions on appellate review is to avoid piecemeal litigation. BCW Enterprises, Ltd. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 964 P.2d 533 (Colo.App. 1997).
The respondents do not dispute the ALJ’s order on the issue of temporary disability benefits. Further, the ALJ’s order does not award or deny any specific medical benefits. It follows, we reject the claimant’s contention that the ALJ ordered the respondents to provide the psychological evaluation recommended by the ATP. Under these circumstances, the contested portion of the order does not award or deny any benefit or penalty within the meaning of § 8-42-301(2). Consequently, the respondents’ Petition to Review is premature. See Director of Division of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161 (Colo.App. 1986).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ Petition to Review the ALJ’s order dated September 29, 2003, 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. 2003. 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 order were mailed to the parties at the addresses shown below on February 10, 2004 by A. Hurtado.
Herschel Williams, 1360D Sandalwood Dr., Colorado Springs, CO 80916
LB B Associates, P. O. Box 13700, Fort Carson, CO 80913
Transcontinental Insurance Company, c/o Kimberly D. Dick, Adjuster, CNA Insurance Company, P. O. Box 17369, Denver, CO 80217
Renee C. Ozer, Esq., 18 E. Monument St., Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (For Claimant)
David W. Smiley, Esq., 950 17th St., 21st floor, Denver, CO 80202-2804 (For Respondents)