W.C. No. 4-615-990.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 31, 2005.
ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Stuber (ALJ) which determined that the authorized treating physician (ATP) placed the claimant at maximum medical improvement (MMI). We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
The claimant sustained an admitted back injury in May 2004. In June 2004 the claimant learned she was pregnant. On August 19, 2004 the ATP signed a form placing the claimant at MMI with no permanent medical impairment. The form states the claimant is “at MMI due to pregnancy.”
On September 15, 2004, the respondents filed a Final Admission of Liability (FAL) stating that the claimant reached MMI on August 19 with no permanent medical impairment. On October 4 the claimant filed an Application for Hearing listing the issue as whether the ATP “properly” placed the claimant at MMI. Also on October 4 the claimant filed a notice and proposal to select a DIME physician.
The matter proceeded to hearing on December 29, 2004, prior to completion of the DIME. On December 30, 2004, the ALJ issued an order finding that the ATP “unambiguously” placed the claimant at MMI. The ALJ also stated that he could not determine whether the ATP’s finding of MMI was correct, and the “next step is the Division IME process.” The ALJ noted that neither party sought penalties or benefits, and none were awarded by the order. On review the claimant disputes the ALJ’s finding that the ATP “unambiguously” placed the claimant at MMI.
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2004, provides that any party dissatisfied with an order “which requires any party to pay a penalty or benefits or denies a claimant any benefits or penalty” may file a petition to review. Orders which do not award or deny benefits or penalties are interlocutory and not subject to immediate review. Natkin Co. v. Eubanks, 775 P.2d 88
(Colo.App. 1989) Further, a reviewable order must finally dispose of the issue presented. Ortiz v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110 (Colo.App. 2003); Bestway Concrete v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 984 P.2d 680 (Colo.App. 1999).
Here, as the ALJ expressly noted in the order, no benefits or penalties were awarded or denied. Instead, the ALJ made a factual determination that the ATP placed the claimant at MMI, thereby triggering the applicability of the DIME procedure. Section 8-42-107(8)(b)(II)-(III), C.R.S. 2004. It remains possible that upon completion of the DIME process or any challenge to the DIME physician’s finding that the claimant will be found not to have reached MMI. Consequently, the order is not final and reviewable because it does not completely resolve the issue of MMI let alone determine the claimant’s entitlement to benefits which are dependent on MMI. See Ortiz v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, supra.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claimant’s petition to review the ALJ’s order dated December 30, 2004, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________ David Cain
___________________ Curt Kriksciun
Amber N. Sagapolu, Colorado Springs, CO, Soraya Gillespie, Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Hanover, MD, Mary Anne Slick, Specialty Risk Services/AIG Insurance, P. Denver, CO, Steven R. Waldmann, Esq., Colorado Springs, CO, (For Claimant).
Gregory R. Daniels, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).