W.C. No. 4-531-922.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
January 7, 2005.
ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Stuber (ALJ) which reopened the claim based on a worsened condition. The respondents contend the evidence does not support the finding that the claimant’s condition has worsened. We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
The ALJ found the claimant sustained a neck injury in February 2002. The claimant was placed at maximum medical improvement (MMI) on June 12, 2002, and a Division-sponsored independent medical examination physician ultimately agreed with the date of MMI. In 2003 the claim was administratively closed after the claimant failed to object to a final admission of liability.
The claimant filed a petition to reopen alleging that neck pain and various other symptoms worsened over time. At the commencement of the hearing the ALJ inquired whether the claimant was requesting any specific benefits if the ALJ were to reopen the claim. Claimant’s counsel replied the claimant was not seeking temporary disability benefits nor any specific medical benefits. (Tr. Pp. 3-4).
On August 12, 2004, the ALJ entered the order reopening the claim. The ALJ found the claimant was experiencing worsened symptoms which warrant “further evaluation and treatment, if possible.” However, consistent with the position of claimant’s counsel, the ALJ entered only a general order requiring the respondents to pay for “reasonable and necessary medical treatment” recommended by the authorized providers.
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2004, 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 are interlocutory and not subject to immediate review. Ortiz v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110 (Colo.App. 2003); 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 may be considered final and reviewable. United Parcel Service v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 988 P.2d 1146 (Colo.App. 1999). In view of these principles we have held on many occasions that general awards of medical benefits are not final and reviewable unless the ALJ determines the respondents’ liability for specific treatment. Thomas v. Four Corners Health Care,
W.C. No. 4-484-220 (June 23, 2003); Tooley v. Johnson Sons Trucking,
W.C. No. 4-376-713 (January 28, 2000). The rationale for these decisions is that even in cases where the ALJ determines general liability for medical treatment the respondents remain free to challenge the reasonableness and necessity for specific treatments which may later be recommended. See Kroupa v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 53 P.3d 1192
(Colo.App. 2002).
Here, in accordance with the wishes of claimant’s counsel, the ALJ did not order the respondents to provide any specific medical treatment. A dispute could yet arise concerning the nature of the evaluation or treatment which is to be provided for the claimant’s worsened condition. Moreover, the ALJ reserved for future consideration all issues not determined by the order. Consequently, we conclude the ALJ’s order is interlocutory and not currently subject to review.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s order dated August 12, 2004, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________ David Cain
____________________ Robert M. Socolofsky
Richard Evel, Pueblo West, CO, Jeri Bolt, Navajo Express, Inc., Commerce City, CO, Sherry Martin, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Irving, TX, John V. FitzSimons, Esq., Pueblo, CO, (For Claimant).
Raymond A. Melton, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).