W.C. No. 4-762-814.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
September 22, 2010.
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Krumreich (ALJ) dated April 9, 2010, that determined Colorado has subject matter jurisdiction of the claim and that the claim for compensation and benefits was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
A hearing was held on two issues of Colorado’s jurisdiction over the claim and whether the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The ALJ found that Colorado had subject matter jurisdiction of the claim and that the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. However, no specific benefits were awarded or denied by the order and the ALJ reserved all other issues for future decision. The respondents appealed and argued that the ALJ erred in concluding that the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations and requested that we reverse this conclusion as a matter of law. However, we conclude that the order is not final and, therefore, not presently reviewable.
Under § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S., 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 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).
Here, the ALJ noted and we agree that no specific benefits were either awarded or denied by his order. Accordingly, the order is not presently final and reviewable. We note that the claimant has filed a Motion to Strike an order of the ALJ which struck an exhibit attached to the claimant’s Brief in Opposition to Petition to Review. However, because of our determination that the ALJ’s order is not presently reviewable we need not presently address this motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s order dated April 9, 2010 is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ Curt Kriksciun
______________________________ Thomas Schrant
MARK A. BEYER, CHEYENNE, WY, (Claimant).
XTREME OIL FIELD TRUCKING, INC., HOUSTON, TX, (Employer).
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Attn: VALERIE BURKE, C/O: ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, SCHUAMBURG, IL, (Insurer).
DAVID R. CALVERT, ENGLEWOOD, CO, (For Claimant).
THE KITCH LAW FIRM, PC, Attn: MARSHA A. KITCH, ESQ., EVERGREEN, CO, (For Respondents).