W.C. No. 4-607-353.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
April 25, 2005.
ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Coughlin (ALJ) dated November 18, 2004. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order.
The matter came before the ALJ on a fully contested claim for workers’ compensation benefits in connection with injuries suffered by the claimant on October 12, 2003, during a motor vehicle accident. The respondents denied liability on grounds the claimant was an independent contractor at the time of the accident.
The ALJ found the claimant was the respondent-employer’s employee at the time of the injury. Consequently, the ALJ ordered the respondents to provide “reasonable and necessary medical care in accordance with Section 8-42-101 C.R.S.” Further, the ALJ determined that Dr. McNutt is an authorized treating physician. However, the ALJ made no factual determinations concerning whether Dr. McNutt’s treatment was reasonably necessary to treat the compensable injury. Neither did the ALJ order the respondents to pay any specific medical benefits. Instead, the ALJ expressly reserved for future determination all issues not decided by the order.
Under § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2004, 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). Only final orders are subject to our review. Director of the Division of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161 (Colo.App. 1986).
Accordingly, we have previously held that orders which contain a general award of medical benefits are not final and reviewable unless the reasonableness of specific medical treatment is resolved. Rosas v. DDC Interiors, Inc., W.C. No. 4-364-828 (August 18, 1999); Tilton v. ABC Turf Care, W.C. No. 3-105-542 (August 18, 1994). The rationale for these decisions is that the respondents maintain the right to contest the reasonableness and necessity for particular medical benefits. Snyder v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, supra. We adhere to our previous conclusions.
The ALJ’s order does not require the respondents to pay any specific benefit or penalty. Neither does the order deny the claimant any benefit or penalty. Therefore, the November 18 order is not a final order within the meaning of § 8-43-301(2), and is not currently subject to review.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s order dated November 18, 2004, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________ David Cain
____________________ Kathy E. Dean
Ezgimeles Gezahgn, Aurora, CO, Personnel Manager, SuperShuttle International, Scottsdale, AZ, Bob Stribling, SuperShuttle International, Denver, CO, Royal and SunAlliance, c/o Pam Morrison, Risk Enterprise Management, Ltd., Englewood, CO, Kevin C. Smith, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Claimant).
Cheryl A. Martin, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).