W.C. No. 4-399-264Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
June 8, 2000
ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Schulman (ALJ) which determined the claimant sustained a compensable occupational disease and awarded “reasonable and necessary” medical benefits. We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
The ALJ found the claimant sustained a compensable occupational disease. She also found the claimant received treatment for the disease by “authorized treating physicians,” and is “entitled to all reasonable and necessary medical care from authorized providers” from September 22, 1998. However, the ALJ did not order the respondents to pay for any particular medical treatment, did not determine whether any particular medical treatment was reasonable and necessary, and reserved “any issues not determined” by the order. Further, our review of the record indicates the respondents did not stipulate to the reasonableness and necessity of any particular medical treatment. (Tr. p. 4).
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 1999, provides that a party dissatisfied with an order “which requires any party to pay a penalty or benefits or denies a 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 final and appealable. See United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, ___ P.2d ___ (Colo.App. No. 99CA0540, June 24, 1999). In view of these principles, we have previously held that general awards of medical benefits are not final and reviewable absent a ruling concerning the respondents’ liability for specific treatment. E.g., Goble v. Sam’s Wholesale Club, W.C. No. 4-297-675 (March 7, 2000); Tooley v. Johnson and Sons Trucking, W.C. No. 4-376-713 (January 28, 2000); Tilton v. ABC Turf Care, W.C. No. 3-105-542 (August 18, 1994).
Here, the claimant did not request payment for specific medical benefits, and the ALJ did not order payment of any such benefits. To the contrary, it appears the ALJ reserved the issue of whether the authorized medical treatment provided to the claimant was reasonable and necessary. Under these circumstances, the ALJ’s general award of medical benefits is not sufficient to render the order final and reviewable.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s order dated November 30, 1999, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ David Cain
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
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 Arapahoe, 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. 1999.
Copies of this decision were mailed June 8, 2000
to the following parties:
Patrick J. Daley, 3196 W. 62nd Ave., Denver, CO 80221
Alternative Delivery, Inc. and Wall Street Company, 756 S. Jason St., Unit 27, Denver, CO 80223-2851
Sandy Maez, Hartford Casualty Company, 7670 S. Chester St., #300, P. O. Box 22815, Denver, CO 80222
Marlin W. Burke, Esq., 1700 Broadway, #1800, Denver, CO 80290 (For Claimant)
Tama L. Levine, Esq., 1515 Arapahoe St., Tower 3, #600, Denver, CO 80202 (For Respondents)
BY: A. Pendroy