W.C. No. 4-756-139.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
November 6, 2009.
FINAL ORDER
The respondent seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Cannici (ALJ) dated June 16, 2009 that determined that the claimant was an employee of the respondent, that determined that he was not an independent contractor, and that determined that he sustained a compensable injury. Because the order is not presently final and reviewable, we dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
A hearing was held on the issues whether the claimant was an employee of the respondent, whether the claimant was an independent contractor, and, depending upon the outcome of those issues, whether the claimant sustained an injury in the course and scope of his employment. Following the hearing the ALJ entered findings of fact and, based upon those findings, the ALJ concluded that the claimant was an employee of the respondent, was not an independent contractor, and had sustained a compensable injury. The ALJ did not order any benefits or compensation to be paid by the respondent.
The respondent appealed the ALJ’s order. However, because it is not final and presently reviewable, we must dismiss the petition to review. Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2009, provides that any dissatisfied 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.” An order which does not satisfy one of the finality criteria of this statute is interlocutory and not subject to immediate review. Natkin Co. v. Eubanks, 775 P.2d 88 (Colo. App. 1989). Under this statute, the order must be one that finally disposes of the issues presented. Bestway Concrete v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 984 P.2d 680 (Colo. App. 1999). Our jurisdiction is purely statutory and may not be conferred by
Page 2
waiver, consent, or any other equitable principle. Gardner v. Friend, 849 P.2d 817 (Colo. App. 1992). The absence of a final, reviewable order is fatal to our jurisdiction. Buschmann v. Gallegos Masonry, Inc., 805 P.2d 1193 (Colo. App. 1991).
Here, the ALJ’s order does not require any party to pay a penalty or benefit, nor does it deny the claimant any penalty or benefit. Therefore, the order is not presently final and we have no jurisdiction to review it at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ALJ’s order dated June 16, 2009, is dismissed without prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ John D. Baird
____________________________________ Curt Kriksciun
Page 3
WT ENTERPRISES, MONTE JOHNSON SUE JOHNSON, Attn: MONTE JOHNSON, BYERS, CO, (Employer).
ELEY GALLOWAY TRIGG, LLC, Attn: ROBERT N TRIGG, ESQ., DENVER, CO, (For Claimant).
BENSON CASE, LLP, Attn: JOSEPH P. STENGEL, JR., ESQ., DENVER, CO, (For Respondents).
MONTE JOHNSON, BYERS, CO, (Other Party).
Page 1