W.C. No. 4-365-337, 4-411-254, 4-411-255Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
April 13, 2000
ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Martinez (ALJ). We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice
In an order dated October 7, 1999, the ALJ found the claimant’s low back and right knee conditions are causally related to the industrial injury of March 18, 1997. Consequently, the ALJ ordered the respondents to provide “reasonable medical care and treatment necessary to cure and relieve” these conditions. The ALJ reserved for future determination all issues not decided by the order. The respondents filed a petition to review contesting the sufficiency of the evidence to support the ALJ’s findings concerning causation § 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). Considering these principles, we have previously held that general awards of medical benefits are not final and reviewable absent an order determining the respondents’ liability for specific treatment. E.g. Tooley v. Johnson and Sons Trucking, W.C. No. 4-376-713 (January 28, 2000)
Here, the claimant requested an order “authorizing” treatment for the right knee and low back. However, the record does not reflect that specific medical benefits were in issue, and the ALJ did not order specific benefits. Under these circumstances, the ALJ’s order is not final and reviewable because there has been no determination of the claimant’s entitlement to specific medical benefits. Indeed, the respondents remain free to contest the reasonableness of and the necessity for any particular treatments which may ultimately be prescribed
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s order dated October 7, 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 Araphoe, 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 April 13, 2000 to the followingparties:
William Everett, Jr., 3233 ~ D 3/4 Rd., Clifton, CO 81520
Dodd Diesel Inc., 767 Valley Ct., Grand Junction, CO 81505
Leigh Brazee, TIG Insurance Co., 6400 S. Fiddler’s Green Circle, # 1300, Englewood, CO 80111
Mary Anne Slick, CNA, 10333 E. Dry Creek Rd., #300, Floor 3, Englewood, CO 80110
Richard T. Gurley, Esq., 200 Grand Ave., #315, Grand Junction, CO 81501 (For Claimant)
Kent L. Yarbrough, Esq., 5353 W. Dartmouth Ave., #400, Denver, CO 80227 (For Respondents)
BY: A. Pendroy