W.C. No. 4-343-280.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
August 11, 2003.
ORDER
The respondents seek review of a order of Administrative Law Judge Felter (ALJ), which set aside a settlement agreement. Because we conclude that the ALJ’s order is not currently subject to review, we dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
The ALJ’s order reflects that the parties entered into a settlement agreement on June 8, 2000, which was approved on June 14, 2000. In March 2001 the claimant filed a petition to reopen which alleged a mutual mistake of material fact concerning the issue of (MMI) maximum medical improvement.
The matter came before the ALJ on the sole issue of the petition to reopen. (Tr. p. 3). On March 3, 2003, the ALJ entered the order under review. The ALJ found the claimant sustained his burden to prove the parties were mutually mistaken that the claimant was at MMI as of June 8, 2000. Furthermore, the ALJ determined MMI was a material fact to the settlement. Consequently, the ALJ set aside the settlement agreement. The ALJ expressly reserved all other issues for future determination.
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2002, provides that a party “dissatisfied with an order” may file a petition to review if the order requires any party to pay a penalty or benefits, or denies the claimant any benefit or penalty. Orders which do not satisfy these criteria are interlocutory and not subject to review. Director of the Division of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161 (Colo.App. 1986) (order reopening a claim is not reviewable absent an award or denial of benefits).
We have previously held that orders setting aside settlement agreements or rescinding approval of settlement agreements are, standing alone, interlocutory. See Piel v. Schlage Lock Company, W.C. No. 4-100-755
(October 28, 1998). This is true because such orders do not require the payment of benefits or penalties, nor do they deny the claimant any benefit or penalties. Orth v. Southland Corp., W.C. No. 4-190-191
(February 27, 1998); Gonzales v. Redfield Rifle Scopes, Inc.,
W.C. No. 3-954-062 (June 30, 1993). Consequently, the ALJ’s March 3 order is interlocutory because it does not deny the claimant any benefits or penalties, nor does it require the respondents to pay any benefits or penalties.
We recognize that the ALJ granted the respondents a “credit” for benefits previously paid pursuant to the settlement. However, this provision does not render the order reviewable because it does not deny the claimant any benefits or penalties, nor does it require the respondents to pay any benefit or penalty. Rather, the significance of the “credit” is dependent on a subsequent order concerning the nature of any benefits owed to the claimant.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ petition to review the ALJ’s order dated March 3, 2003, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ Kathy E. Dean
______________________________ Robert M. Socolfsky
NOTICE
An action to modify or vacate this Order may be commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, by filing a petition for review with the Court, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to § 8-43-301(10) and § 8-43-307, C.R.S. 2002. The appealing party must serve a copy of the petition upon all other parties, including the Industrial Claim Appeals Office, which may be served by mail at 1515 Arapahoe, Tower 3, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202.
Copies of this decision were mailed August 11, 2003 to the following parties:
John M. Young, 6381 W. 109th Pl., Westminster, CO 80020
BJ Services, 285 Weld County Road 27, Brighton, CO 80601
Mary Koch, RSKCo, P. O. Box 5307, Denver, CO 80217-5307
Gregory W. Heron, Esq. and Laurence J. Free, Esq., 1199 Bannock St., Denver, CO 80204 (For Claimant)
John H. Sandberg, Esq., 3595 S. Teller St., #407, Lakewood, CO 80235 (For Respondents)
BY: A. Hurtado