W.C. No. 4-198-272Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
July 31, 1998
ORDER
The respondents filed a Petition to Review an order of Administrative Law Judge Henk (ALJ) dated January 16, 1998. We dismiss the Petition to Review without prejudice.
The claimant alleged that she developed psychological problems as a result of a compensable injury on January 7, 1994. In an order dated January 13, 1998, the ALJ found the claimant sustained her burden to prove a compensable psychological injury. Therefore, the ALJ ordered the respondents to provide psychological treatment from the authorized treating providers.
However, because the parties previously stipulated to reserve the issue of medical benefits, the respondents requested the ALJ issue a corrected order which omitted the award of medical benefits. See Tr. July 10, 1997, pp. 3-4. The ALJ issued a corrected order dated January 16, 1998, which found that the claimant proved a compensable psychological injury, and reserved all other issues for future determination. The January 16 order included a notice that the corrected order was “final” in the absence of a timely petition to review.
The respondents contest the ALJ’s finding of a compensable psychological injury, and therefore, they timely filed a Petition to Review the January 16 order. Nevertheless, the respondents argue that the January 16 order does not award or deny any specific benefits or penalties. Therefore, they argue the ALJ’s compensability determination is interlocutory and not currently subject to review.
The claimant contends that the ALJ’s finding of a compensable psychological injury “triggers” the respondents’ statutory obligation under § 8-42-101(1)(a), C.R.S. 1997, to provide reasonable and necessary medical treatment to cure or relieve the effects of the psychological injury. Therefore, the claimant contends that the ALJ’s order inherently requires the respondents to pay medical benefits. We disagree with the claimant.
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 1997, 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). An order which generally determines the employer’s liability for benefits but does not require the payment of specific benefits is not an order requiring the payment of benefits. Oxford Chemicals, Inc. v. Richardson, 782 P.2d 843 (Colo.App. 1989).
The sole issue before the ALJ for adjudication was “causation of Claimant’s psychological injuries.” The ALJ determined that the claimant’s psychological problems are a compensable consequence of the 1994 injury. However, the ALJ’s corrected order does not award any specific medical benefits.
Under these circumstances, the January 16 order does not award or deny any “benefit” within the meaning of § 8-43-301(2), and the claimant’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive See Matthews v. United Parcel Service, W.C. No. 4-325-652
(December 15, 1997), aff’d, United Parcel Service v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, (Colo.App. No. 97CA2278, July 16, 1998) (not selected for publication) (order granting change of providers without denial or award of specific medical benefits is not subject to review). Therefore, the ALJ’s order is interlocutory and not currently reviewable. Director of Division of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161 (Colo.App. 1986); Consequently, we may not consider the respondents’ substantive arguments or modify the ALJ’s order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ Petition to Review the ALJ’s corrected order dated January 16, 1998, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ Kathy E. Dean
______________________________ Bill Whitacre
Copies of this decision were mailed July 31, 1998 to the following parties:
Matilde Almodovar, 514 Smithland, La Junta, CO 81050
Sissy Sailors, Esq., Resource Management Systems, 7447 E. Berry Ave., Ste. 200, Greenwood Village, CO 80111
John G. Napier, Esq., 777 E. Speer Blvd., Ste. 210, Denver, CO 80203 (For the Respondent)
Michael W. Seckar, Esq., 402 W. 12th St., Pueblo, CO 81003 (For the Claimant)
BY: _______________________