W.C. No. 4-227-722Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
July 12, 1995
ORDER
The respondents, Lawrence Construction Co. and its insurer, Assurance Co. of America (respondents) seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Gandy (ALJ) dated May 2, 1995, which dismissed the Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF) from the claim. We dismiss the petition to review.
The procedural history of the claim is pertinent to the respondents’ petition to review. The claimant filed a claim for compensation based upon an alleged injury on April 26, 1994. The respondents filed a Notice of Contest and a request to offset liability to the SIF. The SIF was subsequently joined as a respondent.
Thereafter, a hearing was scheduled on the issues of compensability, medical benefits, penalties and temporary disability benefits, and the SIF’s liability. However, the ALJ granted a continuance and the hearing was not reset prior to the issuance of the ALJ’s May 2 order.
Pursuant to section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. (1993 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).
The ALJ’s May 2, 1995 order does not require any party to pay a penalty or benefit nor does it deny the claimant a benefit or penalty. There has been no admission or determination that the claimant is entitled to any specific benefits in connection with the alleged injury of March 26. In fact, there has been no determination as to whether the claimant suffered a compensable injury on March 26, 1994, because the respondents denied liability and the previously scheduled hearing was continued. Consequently, the ALJ’s order which dismisses the SIF from the claim 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 respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s order dated May 2, 1995, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
NOTICE
An action to vacate or modify this Order may be commenced in theColorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, by filinga petition for review with the court, with service of a copy of thepetition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties,within twenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant tosection 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1994 Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed July 12, 1995 to the following parties:
Bill Joe Crowder, 525 26th Ave. Ct., Greeley, CO 80631
Lawrence Construction Co., 9002 N. Moore Rd., Littleton, CO 80125-9517
Maryland Casualty Co., Attn: Amanda Anderson, 2729 Prospect Park Dr., Ste. 100, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Subsequent Injury Fund (Interagency Mail)
James R. Clifton, Esq., 5353 W. Dartmouth Ave., #400, Denver, CO 80227 (For the Respondents)
Attorney General’s Office, Attn: Jill M. Gallet, Esq., 1525 Sherman St., 5th Flr., Denver, CO 80203 (For the SIF)
BY: _______________________