W.C. No. 4-590-624.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
December 22, 2005.
ORDER
The respondent seeks review of an order dated August 31, 2005, of Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ) that found that the claim remains open on all issues. We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
The claimant sustained an admitted injury on January 21, 2003. The claimant underwent a Division-sponsored independent medical examination (DIME). The respondent filed a Final Admission of Liability (FAL) based on the DIME report. The claimant filed an objection to the FAL and filed an application for hearing. Various prehearing conferences took place and orders were entered concerning when the claim could be set for hearing. Eventually the parties submitted this matter to the ALJ for an order on the question of whether the claimant’s case is closed and if not what issues remain open. The ALJ found the claim remains open on all issues.
On review the respondent contends the ALJ erred in finding the claim remained open. Respondent argues that based §8-43-203(2)(b) C.R.S. 2005, the claim should be closed based on the passage of time and failure of the claimant to reset the original timely application for hearing.
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2005, states that a party may file a petition to review an order “which requires any party to pay a penalty or benefits or denies a claimant any benefit or penalty.” Orders which do not satisfy one or more of these criteria are interlocutory and not subject to immediate review. Ortiz v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110 (Colo.App. 2003). Generally, a reviewable order must finally dispose of the issue presented and determine the amount of penalties or benefits to be awarded. See Reed v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 13 P.3d 810 (Colo.App. 2000); Bestway Concrete v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 984 P.2d 680 (Colo.App. 1999); United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 988 P.2d 1146
(Colo.App. 1999). Considering these principles our courts have held that an order which reopens a case without determining liability for specific benefits is interlocutory. Natkin Co. v. Eubanks, 775 P.2d 88 (Colo.App. 1989).
Insofar as the respondent seeks to dispute the ALJ’s ruling that this claim remains open on all issues, the order is not currently subject to review. The ALJ’s order, while it determines that the claimant is now allowed to proceed to hearing where he may be awarded benefits, does not currently require any party to pay a penalty or benefits or deny the claimant any benefits.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondent’s petition to review the ALJ’s order dated August 31, 2005, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Thomas Schrant
____________________________________ Robert M. Socolofsky
Francisco Verduzco, Bellflower, CA, Patty Malavasic, Cargill Meat Solutions, Fort Morgan, CO, Margaret Johnson, Crawford
Company, Fort Collins, CO, Britton Morrell, Esq., Greeley, CO, (For Claimant).
Tama L. Levine, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondent).