W.C. No. 4-444-436Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
September 9, 2001
ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Stuber (ALJ) insofar as it determined a claim for medical benefits is not barred by operation of § 8-41-206, C.R.S. 2001. We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
The claimant sought an award of medical benefits for treatment of chronic beryllium disease. The respondents argued the claim is barred by operation of § 8-41-206 because the claimant’s last exposure to beryllium occurred more than five years prior to the need for treatment. As the ALJ found, the respondents stipulated the claimant needs medical treatment “subject to respondents’ right to litigate the reasonableness, necessity, or authorization for any particular benefit.” (Conclusion of Law 2). The ALJ ruled in favor of the claimant and ordered the respondents to pay “all reasonable and necessary medical benefits from authorized providers to monitor and treat claimant’s occupational disease.”
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2001, provides that a party dissatisfied with an order “which requires any party to pay a penalty or benefits or denies the claimant any 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). Further, an order must determine the amount of benefits to be awarded before it is considered to be final and appealable. United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 988 P.2d 1146
(Colo.App. 1999). In view of these principles we have repeatedly held that general awards of medical benefits are not final and reviewable absent a ruling concerning the respondents’ liability for specific procedures, medications or treatments. Eg. Tooley v. Johnson and Sons Trucking, W.C. No. 4-376-713 (January 28, 2000). This is true because even if the respondents are found liable for medical benefits because the injury is compensable, they remain free to contest the reasonableness, necessity, and authorization for specific treatments. Thus, a general award of medical benefits does not deny the claimant any benefits, nor does it require the respondents to pay any particular benefits.
It follows the ALJ’s general award of medical benefits is not final and reviewable. The ALJ’s ruling concerning the applicability of §8-41-206 will become final and reviewable in connection with any order requiring the respondents to pay specific medical benefits.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s order dated May 3, 2001, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
________________________________ David Cain
________________________________ Robert M. Socolofsky
NOTICE
An action to modify or vacate the Order may be commenced in the 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 Claim Appeals Office, which may be served by mail at 1515 Araphoe, Tower 3, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202, and all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date the Order was mailed, pursuant to §§ 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. 2001.
Copies of this decision were mailed September 21, 2001 to the following parties:
Gary Coven, 7360 Utica St., Westminster, CO 80030
DOW Chemical Company, P. O. Box 464, Golden, CO 80402-0464
Albert A. Jerman, Risk Manager, Kaiser-Hill Company, L.L.C., 10808 Highway 93, Unit B, Bldg. 850, Golden, CO 80403-8200
Tameria I. Stukes, Travelers Insurance Company, P. O. Box 173762, Denver, CO 80217-3762
Joseph M. Goldhammer, Esq., 1563 Gaylord St., Denver, CO 80206 (For Claimant)
Lawrence D. Blackman, Esq., and Lynda S. Newbold, Esq., 1515 Arapahoe St., Tower 3, #600, Denver, CO 80202 (For Respondents)
BY: A. Pendroy