W.C. No. 4-578-951.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
December 22, 2004.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Harr (ALJ) which granted the respondents’ motion to strike the claimant’s Application for Hearing. We affirm.
The claimant suffered an admitted injury in March 2003. On April 5, 2004, the respondents filed a Final Admission of Liability (FAL) which terminated temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, but admitted liability for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits and medical benefits after maximum medical improvement as provided by Grover v. Industrial Commission, 759 P.2d 705 (Colo. 1988).
On June 21, 2004, the claimant filed an Application for Hearing on the issues of Grover-type medical benefits, TTD, PPD and permanent total disability (PTD). The respondents moved to strike the Application on grounds the issues were closed because the claimant failed to timely object to the FAL. The ALJ agreed and, therefore, granted the motion to strike.
The claimant’s Petition to Review alleged the ALJ’s order is not supported by substantial evidence and the applicable law. A briefing schedule was established which afforded the claimant until October 7, 2004, to file a brief in support of the Petition.
No brief was filed by either party within the time allotted by the briefing schedule. However, on November 24, the respondents moved for an extension of time to file a brief in opposition to the Petition.
Initially, we determine the respondents’ motion for an extension of time to file a brief is untimely. Therefore, we deny the motion and have not considered the respondents’ brief in opposition to the Petition.
Section 8-43-203(2)(b)(II), C.R.S. 2004, provides as follows:
An admission of liability for final payment of compensation shall include a statement that this is the final admission by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier in the case, that the claimant may contest this admission if the claimant feels entitled to more compensation, to whom the claimant should provide written objection, and notice to the claimant that the case will be automatically closed as to the issues admitted in the final admission if the claimant does not, within thirty days after the date of the final admission, contest the final admission in writing and request a hearing on any disputed issues that are ripe for hearing. (Emphasis added).
Accordingly, the failure to file a written objection to a FAL within 30 days of the date the FAL closes the claim on all admitted issues. Dyrkopp v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office 30 P.3d 821(Colo.App. 2001); Dalco Industries, Inc. v. Garcia, 867 P.2d 156 (Colo.App. 1993).
Here, the record amply supports the respondents’ assertion and the ALJ’s implicit finding that the claimant failed to object to the April 5, 2004, FAL by May 5, 2004. To the contrary, the record reflects the claimant took no action until June 21, 2004, when he filed the Application for Hearing.
Furthermore, the FAL took a position on the issues endorsed in the claimant’s June 21 Application for Hearing. Consequently, the issues were closed by virtue of the uncontested FAL and the ALJ correctly dismissed the claimant’s application for hearing on those issues. See Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186 (Colo.App. 2002).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated July 22, 2004, is affirmed.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________ David Cain
___________________ Kathy E. Dean
Benito Reyes, Denver, CO, Pinehurst Country Club, Denver, CO, George F. Robertie, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Claimant).
Amanda A. Mitchell, Esq., Pinnacol Assurance — Interagency Mail, (For Respondents).