IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF ARTURO AGUAYO, Claimant, v. CHATWOOD MANAGEMENT/ALHA VILLAGE ON THE GREEN APTS., Employer, and HARTFORD CASUALTY COMPANY, Insurer, Respondents.

W.C. No. 4-404-804Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
January 18, 2000

[1] ORDER

[2] The respondents filed a Petition to Review an order of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Hopf which determined the claimant suffered a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order.

[3] 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). 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); 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).

[4] Here, the sole issue before the ALJ was “compensability.” In her order dated June 15, 1999, the ALJ determined the claimant sustained his burden to prove he suffered a compensable injury. However, the ALJ did not award or deny any specific workers’ compensation benefits or penalties. Furthermore, no specific benefits were requested. (Tr. p. 3).

[5] Under these circumstances, the ALJ’s order is interlocutory and not currently subject to review. Director of Division of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161 (Colo.App. 1986). Consequently, we must dismiss the respondents’ Petition to Review.

[6] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ Petition to Review the ALJ’s order dated June 15, 1999, is dismissed without prejudice.

[7] INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL

[8] ___________________________________ David Cain

[9] ____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean

NOTICE
[10] 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, with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to section 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. 1999.

[11] Copies of this decision were mailed January 18, 2000 the following parties:

[12] Arturo Aguayo, 1869 Coronado Parkway, #308, Thornton, CO 80229

[13] Chatwood Management/Alpha Village on the Green Apts., 2942 Evergreen Parkway, #302, Evergreen, CO 80439

[14] Hartford Casualty Company, 7670 S. Chester St., #300, Englewood, CO 80112

[15] Amado L. Cruz, Esq., 2055 S. Oneida St., #260, Denver, CO 80224 (For Claimant)

[16] Randy D. Kotel, Esq., Bradley R. Unkeless, Esq., 7670 S. Chester St., #300, Englewood, CO 80112 (For Respondents)

[17] BY: L. Epperson