W.C. No. 4-610-968.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 17, 2005.
ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Stuber (ALJ) which determined the claimant sustained a compensable occupational disease and determined that certain medical treatment was authorized. We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice for lack of a final order.
This matter proceeded to hearing on the issues of compensability and whether or not medical treatment was authorized. The ALJ found that the claimant proved a compensable occupational disease, and the respondents contend that this determination is not supported by the record. The ALJ also found that the right to select the authorized treating physician passed to the claimant because the designated provider failed to provide treatment for non-medical reasons.
During the course of the hearing, it became apparent that all of the treatment provided by the physicians selected by the claimant had been paid for by the claimant’s private health insurance carrier. Claimant’s counsel then acknowledged that all the claimant was seeking was a “declaration” that as between the claimant and the respondents the respondents should be liable if the health insurance carrier seeks reimbursement for the medical treatment. Indeed, claimant’s counsel stated that she does not care whether the health insurance carrier is reimbursed so long as the claimant does not have to do it. The respondents’ counsel represented to the ALJ that at the time of the hearing there were no “outstanding” medical bills. (Tr. Pp. 39, 46).
The ALJ ordered the respondents to pay for all “reasonable and necessary medical expenses” for treatment of the claimant’s occupational disease. However, the ALJ added that the parties did not “litigate the specific amount of medical bills owed by” the respondents. All issues not resolved by the order were reserved for future determination.
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2005, provides 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 meet one of these criteria are interlocutory and not subject to immediate review. Ortiz v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110
(Colo.App. 2003); Natkin Co. v. Eubanks, 775 P.2d 88 (Colo.App. 1989). Generally, orders are not final if they do not fully dispose of the issue presented including the amount of benefits to be paid. 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). In view of these principles we have held that general awards of medical benefits are not final and reviewable absent a ruling concerning the respondents’ liability for specific treatment. Eg. Tooley v. Johnson and Sons Trucking, W.C. No. 4-376-713
(January 28, 2000).
Here, the ALJ’s order is not final and reviewable. The respondents have not been ordered to pay any specific amount of medical bills to the claimant, any medical provider, or the claimant’s health insurance carrier. As the ALJ’s order expressly recognizes, the amount of payments to be made by the respondents, if any, remains to be determined. Indeed, if the health insurance carrier should seek reimbursement for payments made on behalf of the claimant it is certainly possible that the respondents will dispute the amount of reimbursement to be made. Otherwise, the order is merely a general award of future medical benefits and is not currently final.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s order dated January 20, 2005, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________ David Cain
___________________ Curt Kriksciun
Elke A. Vicic, Colorado Springs, CO, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO, American Home Assurance Co., c/o Jon Causseaux, CMI, Bentonville, AR, Cullen A. Wheelock, Esq., Colorado Springs, CO, (For Claimant).
Richard A. Bovarnick, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).