W.C. No. 4-822-605.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
October 19, 2011.
ORDER
The claimant and the respondent Mobile Restoration Services, Inc. d/b/a ColorAll Technologies of Colorado-North (MRS) seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Allegretti (ALJ) dated April 19, 2011, that determined the sole issue of which employer was responsible for the claimant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits as a result of an alleged injury that took place on January 28, 2010. We dismiss the parties’ petitions to review without prejudice for lack of a final order.
Pursuant to a prehearing conference order mailed on August 25, 2010, the hearing that was to be held on February 25, 2011, was a bifurcated hearing solely to determine the responsible employer and insurer, if the employer was insured, with regard to the claimant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The prehearing ALJ held that the issues of compensability and entitlement to benefits were reserved for future determination. The prehearing ALJ specifically ruled in pertinent part as follows:
This PALJ rules that hearing in this case shall be bifurcated as follows: Determination of who is the responsible employer and insurer, if such is insured, shall first be determined with regard to claimant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits as a result of an alleged occupational injury on January 28, 2010. This issue shall be determined prior to determination
Page 2
of whether claimant suffered a compensable injury and, if so, what the benefits are to which claimant is entitled. All parties agreed with this PALJ at [the] Prehearing Conference on August 23, 2010 that the fact issues regarding the employer who employed claimant on date of alleged accidental injury on January 28, 2010 are extremely complex, and discovery is needed by all parties to determine who such employer will be. Therefore, in the interest of streamlining the claimant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits, the hearing shall first determine who is the responsible employer for the alleged occupational injury of claimant, followed by the claimant’s entitlement to whatever benefits are available to him.
A hearing subsequently was held, and on April 19, 2011, the ALJ issued her findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. In her order, the ALJ specifically concluded that respondent MRS is an employer of the claimant under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), and the claimant is an employee related to cleaning services he performed. The ALJ also ruled that the claimant is not an employee of respondents John Gluckin, individually, Boulder Valley Crane, Inc., and C3B, LLC under the Act and that the claimant’s claims against these respondents were dismissed. The ALJ specifically ordered that “[a]ll other issues, including compensability and entitlement to benefits are reserved.” Order at 17 ¶ 3.
The claimant filed his petition to review, objecting to the ALJ’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. The respondent MRS also filed a petition to review. In its brief in support of its petition to review, the respondent MRS asserts, in part, that the ALJ’s order should be clarified that the issues of compensability and entitlement to benefits have not been determined in any manner and that such issues remain to be adjudicated.
Pursuant to § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. of the Act, we are granted jurisdiction only to review an order which requires any party to pay a penalty or benefits or which denies a claimant any benefits or penalty. Consequently, an order must satisfy the finality criteria set forth in § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. or we lack jurisdiction. It is well settled that an order which does not require the payment of benefits or penalties, or which denies the claimant benefits or penalties is interlocutory. Director of Div. of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161 (Colo. App. 1986). The legislative purpose behind the restrictions on appellate review is to avoid piecemeal litigation. BCW Enterprises, Ltd. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 964 P.2d 533 (Colo. App. 1997). Consequently, an order is not final if it does 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).
Page 3
Here, the ALJ’s order only determined which potential employer is responsible for the alleged industrial injury of claimant. The ALJ’s order did not require any party to pay a penalty or benefits nor did it deny the claimant any benefit or penalty. The ALJ specifically ruled that the issues of compensability and entitlement to benefits were reserved for future determination. Order at 17 ¶ 3. Based on the ALJ’s order, we conclude that it is not final and appealable under § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. Since our jurisdiction is statutory we, therefore, lack jurisdiction to review this order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claimant’s and the respondent MRS’s petitions to review the ALJ’s order dated April 19, 2011, are dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final order.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
______________________________ John D. Baird
______________________________ Kris Sanko
Page 4
PINNACOL ASSURANCE, Attn: HARVEY FLEWELLING, 7501 EAST LOWRY BLVD, DENVER, CO (Insurer).
GOFF GOFF, LLC, Attn: LANCE J. GOFF, BOULDER, CO, (For Claimant).
KISSINGER FELLMAN, P.C., Attn: NANCY CORNISH RODGERS, DENVER, CO, (For Respondents).
MCCREA BUCK LLC, Attn: BRUCE B. MCCREA, DENVER, CO, (Other Party).
C3B LLC, Attn: WARD AND BETH COFFMAN, LONGMONT, CO, (Other Party 2).
Page 1