W.C. Nos. 4-554-398, 4-527-781.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
January 28, 2005.
ORDER
The respondents seek review of a Supplemental Order of Administrative Law Judge Klein (ALJ) which reopened the claim. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order.
In 2001 the claimant suffered an admitted injury. The claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) in May 2003 and the claim was subsequently closed.
The ALJ found the claimant’s condition worsened after May 2003, and as a result the claimant was no longer at MMI. Therefore, the ALJ reopened the claim. However, the ALJ declined to address “the remaining issues at this time.” Instead the ALJ reserved all other issues for future determination.
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). 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); CF I Steel Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 731 P.2d 144
(Colo.App. 1986); Great West Casualty Co. v. Tolbert, (Colo.App. No. 90CA0046, October 4, 1990) (not selected for publication) (order requiring payment of benefits “to which the claimant may be entitled” was not yet reviewable).
The issues before the ALJ were the petition to reopen and a request for medical benefits after MMI as provided by Grover v. Industrial Commission, 759 P.2d 705 (Colo. 1988). Because the ALJ found the claimant was no longer at MMI, he determined the issue of Grover-type benefits was not ripe for adjudication. Furthermore, the ALJ did not award any other specific benefits. Rather the ALJ expressly reserved all other issues for future determination. Under these circumstances, the Supplemental Order does not award or deny any “benefit” within the meaning of § 8-43-301(2). Therefore, the ALJ’s order is interlocutory and not currently reviewable. Director of Division of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161
(Colo.App. 1986).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s Supplemental Order dated October 26, 2004, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________ David Cain
____________________ Kathy E. Dean
Cody Schlatter, Ault, CO, Select Wood Floors, Inc., Fort Collins, CO, Virginia Surety Company, Inc. c/o Stacy Stanton, Applied Risk Services, Omaha, NE, Katherine E. Conahan, Esq., Loveland, CO, (For Claimant).
Keith E. Mottram, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).