W.C. No. 4-244-918Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
April 8, 1997
ORDER
The respondents filed a Petition for Review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ) dated January 26, 1996. The respondents contend that the ALJ abused his discretion in denying their request for a continuance. We dismiss the Petition for lack of a final order.
At the commencement of a hearing on January 23, 1996, the respondents moved for a continuance. However, ALJ determined that the respondents failed to establish good cause for a continuance, and therefore, the ALJ denied the motion.
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing the ALJ entered his order of January 26, in which he found that the claimant suffered an occupational disease as a result of his employment at Sugarloaf Ltd. (employer). The ALJ also found that the claimant gave the employer timely notice of the occupational disease. Therefore, the ALJ denied the respondents’ request for the imposition of a late reporting penalty under § 8-43-102(2), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.). The ALJ’s order also provides that the claimant’s entitlement to benefits is reserved for a later determination.
Under § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. (1996 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, and consequently, are not subject to review. 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); 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 denied the respondents’ request for a “penalty.” However, the ALJ did not deny the claimant a penalty. Nor does the ALJ’s order require the respondents to pay any benefit or penalty, or deny the claimant a benefit. Under these circumstances, the ALJ’s order is not a final order within the meaning of § 8-43-301(2). Therefore, the ALJ’s order 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 for Review of the ALJ’s order dated January 26, 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 in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, by filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the court, with service of a copy of the petition upon the Industrial Claim Appeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to section 8-43-301(10) and 307, C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed April 8, 1997 to the following parties:
Thomas C. Dodds, 261 Cragmore St., Denver, CO 80221
Sugarloaf Ltd., 5926 Saint Vrain Road, Longmont, CO 80503-9024
Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, Attn: Laurie A. Schoder, Esq. (Interagency Mail)
Victor C. Devereauz, Esq., 400 Vega St., P.O. Box 40, San Luis, CO 81152 (For the Claimant)
By: _______________________________