W.C. Nos. 4-501-205, 4-624-887.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
August 16, 2006.
ORDER
The Fremont County respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Mattoon (ALJ) dated February 27, 2006 that concluded that the claimant sustained an occupational disease, that denied apportionment, and that ordered the Fremont respondents to pay reasonable and necessary medical benefits. We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
A hearing was held on the issues of the claimant’s petition to reopen W.C. No. 4-5012-05, the compensability of his alleged occupational disease in W.C. No. 4-624-887, his entitlement to medical benefits, apportionment of liability in the two claims, and a penalty for the claimant’s failure to timely report the claim. Following the hearing the ALJ concluded that the claimant had sustained an occupational disease. She entered a general award ruling the claim compensable and requiring the provision of reasonable and necessary medical benefits. The ALJ also concluded that the petition to reopen W.C. No. 4-501-205 was “moot,” and she deferred resolution of the penalty issue pending a claim for indemnity benefits.
The Fremont County respondents appealed and argue that the record lacks support for the ALJ’s finding that the claimant sustained an occupational disease, that it also lacks support for the finding that the claimant’s disability was attributable to his employment with Fremont County, and that the ALJ erred in refusing to apportion some liability to the co-respondents. However, we conclude that the order is not final and, therefore, not presently reviewable.
Under § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2005, 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) (order may be partially final and reviewable and partially interlocutory); CF I Steel Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 731 P.2d 144 (Colo.App. 1986).
We have previously held that orders which determine compensability and contain only a general award of medical benefits are interlocutory unless the record reveals that specific medical benefits were at issue. E.g. Gonzales v. Public Service Co. of Colorado, W.C. No. 4-131-978 (May 14, 1996) Tilton v. ABC Turf Care, W.C. No. 3-105-542 (August 18, 1994). Here, although the ALJ determined that the claimant had sustained a compensable occupational disease in W.C. No. 4-624-887, the ALJ did not award any specific benefits or compensation. Accordingly, the order is not presently final and reviewable at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Fremont County respondents’ petition to review the order dated February 27, 2006 is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Curt Kriksciun
____________________________________ Thomas Schrant
Eugene Newkirk, Canon City, CO, Klein Electric, Canon City, CO, Harvey D. Flewelling, Denver, CO, Gordon J. Heuser, Colorado Springs, CO, (For Claimant).
Melissa J. Loman Evans, Esq., and Kellie L. Burdick, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).