W.C. No. 4-133-970Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
March 22, 2000
ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ) dated November 18, 1999. The claimant contends the ALJ erroneously vacated the hearing set for November 24, 1999. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order.
The claimant applied for a hearing on the issues of medical benefits and penalties. A hearing was scheduled for November 24, 1999. On November 4, 1999, the respondents moved to strike the hearing on grounds the claimant had failed to respond to discovery. On November 18, 1999, the ALJ granted the respondents’ motion.
The claimant contends it was an abuse of discretion for the ALJ to penalize the claimant’s failure to answer the respondents’ interrogatories by vacating the hearing. The claimant also contends the ALJ’s order denies his request for the reimbursement or payment of the disputed medical benefits.
Under § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 1999, 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). Generally, orders concerning procedural issues, including discovery matters, do not satisfy the statutory definition of an appealable order. See Esquibel v. Victorian Janitorial Services, W.C. No. 4-188-325 (July 8, 1997) compare Carreon v. Monfort Inc., W.C. No. 4-140-621 (December 19, 1994).
Whatever the merits of the claimant’s substantive arguments, we agree with the respondents’ position that the November 18 is interlocutory. Contrary to the claimant’s contention, the order does not deny the claimant a benefit or penalty. To the contrary, the order expressly provides that the claimant may “file a new application for hearing after responding to the interrogatories.” Therefore, the ALJ’s order is not currently subject to review.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claimant’s petition to review the ALJ’s order dated November 18, 1999, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL ____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean ____________________________________ Bill Whitacre
NOTICE
An action to modify or vacate this Order may be commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, by filing a petition for review with the Court, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to § 8-43-301(10) and § 8-43-307, C.R.S. 1999. The appealing party must serve a copy of the petition upon all other parties, including the Industrial Claim Appeals Office, which may be served by mail at 1515 Arapahoe, Tower 3, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202.
Copies of this decision were mailed March 22, 2000 to the following parties:
Ronald J. Dicks, 1 N. Ely St., Widefield, CO 80911
General Aluminum Forgings, 1140 Garden of the Gods Rd., Colorado Springs, CO 80907-3408
Laurie A. Schoder, Esq., Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority dba Pinnacol Assurance —
Interagency Mail (For Respondents)
William A. Alexander, Jr., Esq., 3608 Galley Rd., Colorado Springs, CO 80909-4349 (For Claimant)
Michael Garcia, Esq., 111 S. Tejon, #700, Colorado Springs, CO 80903
BY: A. Pendroy