W.C. Nos. 4-214-551, 4-266-131, 4-266-130Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
January 21, 1997
ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Muramoto (ALJ) dated September 27, 1996, which dismissed the Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF) as a party to the claim. We dismiss the petition to review for lack of a final order.
The claimant suffered compensable injuries on November 11, 1993. The employer admitted liability for medical and permanent partial disability benefits. The claimant contends that she is permanently totally disabled. However, there has been no admission or determination that the claimant is permanently totally disabled.
Under § 8-46-101, C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.), the employer’s liability for permanent total disability benefits may be offset to the SIF where combined industrial injuries render the claimant permanently and totally disabled. In an order dated May 21, 1996, the SIF was joined as a party. However, on September 27, 1996, the ALJ granted the SIF’s request to be dismissed from the claim.
Pursuant to section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.), 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. Oxford Chemicals, Inc. v. Richardson, 782 P.2d 843 (Colo.App. 1989); C F I Steel Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 650 P.2d 1332 (Colo.App. 1982).
Because there has been no determination concerning whether the claimant is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, the ALJ’s order dismissing the SIF from the claim does not requires the payment of a benefit or penalty. Nor does the order deny the claimant a benefit or penalty. Consequently, 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).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claimant’s petition to review the ALJ’s order dated September 17, 1996, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
____________________________________ Bill Whitacre
NOTICE
An action to vacate or modify this Order may be commenced inthe Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO80203, by filing a petition for review with the court, withservice of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial ClaimAppeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) daysafter the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to section8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1994 Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed January 21, 1997 to the following parties:
Carole L. Barber, P.O. Box 3247, 6077 Hwy 73, Evergreen, CO 80439
United Airlines, Inc., DIA, 8900 Pena Blvd., Denver, CO 80249-6363
United Airlines, Inc., Alexsis, Inc., 1515 Arapahoe St., T-1, #410, Denver, CO 80202-2117
Subsequent Injury Fund — Interagency Mail
Janet L. Frickey, Esq., 940 Wadsworth Blvd., 4th Flr., Lakewood, CO 80215 (For the Claimant)
Anthony D. Hall, Esq., 999 18th St., Ste. 3100, Denver, CO 80202 (For the Respondents)
David F. Schutzenhofer, Assistant Attorney General, 1525 Sherman St., 5th Flr., Denver, CO 80203-1760 (For SIF)
By: ______________________________________________