W.C. No. 4-810-998.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
May 20, 2011.
ORDER
The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Walsh (ALJ) dated December 12, 2010 that found the claimant sustained a compensable injury and held them liable for all of the claimant’s reasonable and necessary medical care. We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
The claimant sought a determination that she sustained a work-related injury to her neck and right shoulder. In her position statement she identified the other issue to be whether she was entitled to a general award of medical benefits. In his decision the ALJ identified the issues as compensability and a general award of medical benefits. The ALJ made findings regarding the mechanism of the claimant’s injury and determined that she sustained a compensable injury. Under the circumstances the ALJ found the respondents liable for all reasonable and necessary medical benefits received by the claimant for her injuries.
Under § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S., 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) (order may be partially final and reviewable and partially interlocutory) CF I Steel Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 731 P.2d 144 (Colo. App. 1986).
Page 2
Here, the ALJ has merely ordered the respondents to pay reasonable and necessary medical treatment related to the claimant’s work injury, which he identified as a general award of medical benefits. We have previously held that orders determining compensability and containing only a general award of medical benefits are interlocutory, unless the record reveals that specific medical benefits were at issue. See, e.g,. Gonzales v. Public Service Co. of Colorado, W.C. No. 4-131-978 (May 14, 1996); Tilton v. ABC Turf Care, W.C. No. 3-105-542 (August 18, 1994). Under the circumstances the order is not final for purposes of review.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition to review the ALJ’s order dated December 12, 2010 is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
________________________________ John D. Baird
________________________________ Curt Kriksciun
Page 3
LAURA HARLEY, TONTO BASIN, AZ, (Claimant).
LIFE CARE CENTERS, COLO SPRINGS, CO, (Employer).
OLD REPUBLIC, Attn: ERIC J POLLART, ESQ, C/O: THOMAS POLLART MILLER LLC, GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO, (Insurer).
KONCILJA AND KONCILJA PC, Attn: JAMES R KONCILJA, ESQ, C/O: ROBERT D BAUMBERGER, ESQ, PUEBLO, CO, (For Claimant).
THOMAS POLLART MILLER LLC, Attn: EMILY T ROBERTS, C/O: ERIC J POLLART, ESQ, GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO, (For Respondents).
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS, COLO SPRINGS, CO, (Other Party).
Page 1