W.C. Nos. 4-238-984, 4-306-858Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
June 16, 1997
ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Martinez (ALJ), insofar as it reopened the claim denominated as W.C. No. 4-238-984. We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
Insofar as pertinent, the ALJ found that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on September 2, 1993, and filed the claim designated as W.C. No. 4-238-984. Ultimately, the respondents filed a Final Admission of Liability in which they admitted for “zero percent impairment based on Dr. Cabanilla’s January 24, 1995 report.”
Subsequently, the claimant sought to reopen W.C. No. 4-238-984 on grounds that the final admission of liability was the result of error or mistake because the impairment rating was not given in accordance with principles announced in Askew v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 927 P.2d 1333 (Colo. 1996). In his order, the ALJ determined that the claim should be reopened “on account of error or mistake” stemming from an improper apportionment. The ALJ then ordered the respondents to “take further appropriate action with regard to an award of permanent partial disability benefits.”
The respondents petitioned to review the order alleging that the ALJ erred in finding an error or mistake sufficient to reopen the claim. They also argue that the ALJ’s order to “take further action” is impractical.
Under § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.), a party dissatisfied with an order may file a petition to review any order which requires a party to pay benefits or a penalty or denies the claimant any benefit or penalty. Orders which do not require 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, it has been held that orders which reopen a claim without awarding specific benefits are interlocutory and not subject to review Director of the Division of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161
(Colo.App. 1986).
Here, the disputed portion of the order merely grants the claimant’s petition to reopen, and requires the respondents to take “appropriate action.” Thus, the order falls far short of requiring the respondents to pay any benefit, and does not even specify what “action” they might be required to take. Under these circumstances, the disputed portion of the order is interlocutory, and the respondents’ petition to review must be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s order dated December 23, 1996, 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 inthe 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 ClaimAppeals Office and all other parties, within twenty (20) daysafter the date the Order was mailed, pursuant to §§ 8-43-301(10)and 307, C. R. S. (1996 Cum. Supp.).
Copies of this decision were mailed June 16, 1997 to the following parties:
Richard Ragains, 565 29 Road, #3, Grand Junction, CO 81504
Mesa County Valley School Dist. 51, 2115 Grand Ave., Grand Junction, CO 81501-8007
Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, Attn: Laurie A. Schoder, Esq. (Interagency Mail)
Thomas W. Blake, Esq., 744 Horizon Ct., Ste. 360, Grand Junction, CO 81506 (For the Respondents)
Gudrun Rice, Esq., P.O. Box 3207, Grand Junction, CO 81502 (For the Claimant)
By: ________________________________