W.C. No. 4-117-806Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
September 18, 1997
ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Prehearing Administrative Law Judge Kline (PALJ), denying his request for a Division-sponsored independent medical examination (IME) by a Level II accredited psychiatrist. We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
Prior to a scheduled hearing, the claimant filed a “Motion to Substitute Issue” with the PALJ. The claimant asserted that he was entitled to an IME by a Level II accredited psychiatrist, and that the “issue” of his entitlement should be “considered for hearing, in addition to, or instead of issues presently set for hearing.”
In an order dated March 28, 1997, the PALJ denied the claimant’s motion. The PALJ stated that the claimant has already received an IME by a Level II physician, and thus, is not entitled to an additional IME.
The claimant then filed a timely petition to review the PALJ’s order. The only specific allegations of error are that denial of the requested IME “is contrary to applicable law,” and in violation of the claimant’s “due process and equal protection” rights. The claimant did not file a brief in support of his petition, and the matter has been transmitted to us for review.
Section 8-43-207.5(2), C.R.S. 1997, permits PALJs to enter “interlocutory orders.” Section 8-43-207.5(3), C.R.S. 1997, goes on to state that orders of PALJs “shall be interlocutory.” We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders, including those issued by PALJs. Orth v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office,
___ P.2d ___ (Colo.App. No. 97CA0297, July 10, 1997); Director of the Division of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161 (Colo.App. 1986); § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 1997.
Here, the PALJ’s order does not grant or deny the claimant any benefits or a penalty. The order merely determines that the claimant is not entitled to an additional IME examination. Thus, the order is not currently final and reviewable, although the claimant remains free to raise the issue with an ALJ in the Division of Administrative Hearings. Orth v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, supra.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claimant’s petition to review the PALJ’s order dated March 28, 1997, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ David Cain
______________________________ Bill Whitacre
NOTICE
An action to modify or vacate the Order may be commenced inthe Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver,Colorado 80203, by filing a petition to review with the court,with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial ClaimAppeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) daysafter the date the Order was mailed, pursuant to §§ 8-43-301(10)and 307, C. R. S. 1997.
Copies of this decision were mailed September 18, 1997 to the following parties:
Salvador Barron, 414 Southridge, Apt. 106-B, Ft. Morgan, CO 80701
Excel Corporation, Attn: Erin Hatfield, C.S. 4100, Ft. Morgan, CO 80701
Cargill, Inc., Crawford Co., P.O. Box 340, Greeley, CO 80632
Tama L. Levine, Esq., 1515 Arapahoe St., Tower 3, Ste. 600, Denver, CO 80202 (For the Respondent)
Richard K. Blundell, Esq., 800 8th Ave., Ste. 202, Greeley, CO 80631 (For the Claimant)
By: _______________________________