W.C. No. 4-278-440Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
June 19, 1997
ORDER
The respondents have filed a Petition for Review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Henk (ALJ), which required them to provide medical benefits. We dismiss the Petition for lack of a final order.
The claimant suffered an admitted neck injury on January 22, 1990, which was diagnosed by Dr. Vila-Balzak as a probable cervical strain. In February 1994 the claimant sought treatment from Dr. Young. In a letter dated September 18, 1995, Dr. Young diagnosed the claimant as suffering from a ruptured cervical disc and a narrowing of the disc space in the cervical spine. Dr. Young attributed the claimant’s condition to the 1990 industrial injury.
Crediting the claimant’s testimony and the opinions of Dr. Young, the ALJ determined that the claimant sustained a herniated cervical disc as a result of the 1990 industrial injury which was either undiagnosed or symptomatically worsened to the point where additional treatment is necessitated. The ALJ also determined that the claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, the ALJ granted the claimant’s request for medical benefits. Specifically, the ALJ ordered the respondents “to provide Claimant with all necessary medical, surgical, and hospitalization costs incurred by the Claimant for treatment rendered secondary to his compensable injuries.” The ALJ also denied a claim for temporary disability benefits.
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.), 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). Furthermore, orders which determine liability for benefits, without determining the amount of benefits, do not award or deny benefits as contemplated by § 8-43-301(2), 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).
Here, the ALJ’s order purports to require the respondents to pay for medical expenses previously incurred by the claimant to treat the herniated disc. However, at the commencement of the hearing before the ALJ, claimant’s counsel stated that the claimant is seeking “ongoing treatment.” (Tr. p. 3). Furthermore, the claimant did not request any specific medical treatment. Rather, the claimant testified that he was seeking “additional medical care now to see what can be done,” for his neck. (Tr. p. 9).
We also note the ALJ’s finding that the claimant requires “medical intervention as is described by Dr. Young in his September 18, 1995 letter.” However, Dr. Young’s September 18 letter does not mention any specific treatment.
Further, the ALJ’s order states that “authorization” for medical treatment is one of the issues endorsed for adjudication. However, the ALJ did not make any specific findings of fact concerning the identity of the authorized treating physician(s), and expressly reserved all issues not specifically addressed and resolved by the order for future determination.
Under these circumstances, the ALJ’s order determines the respondents’ liability for medical benefits but does not require them to pay any specific benefit within the meaning of §8-43-301(2). Moreover, the claimant has not appealed the ALJ’s denial of temporary disability benefits. Consequently, the disputed portion of the order is interlocutory, and not currently subject to review. See Oxford Chemicals, Inc. v. Richardson supra. (order may be partially final and partially not final). Therefore, we must dismiss the respondents’ petition to review without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ Petition for Review of the ALJ’s order dated August 30, 1996, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ David Cain
______________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
An action to modify or vacate this Order may be commenced inthe Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO80203, by filing a petition for writ of certiorari 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 this Order is mailed, pursuant to section8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed June 19, 1997 to the following parties:
Randy Brown, 718 Henry, Pueblo, CO 81005
Stress Con Corporation, P.O. Box 15129, Colorado Springs, CO 80935-5129
Curt Kriksciun, Esq., Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority — Interagency Mail
Steven U. Mullens, Esq., 1401 Court St., Pueblo, CO 81003 (For the Claimant)
David L. Smith, Esq., 1700 Broadway, Ste. 1700, Denver, CO 80290-1701 (For the Respondents)
By: _______________________________