No. 94CA0970Colorado Court of Appeals.
Decided April 6, 1995 Petition for Rehearing DENIED May 11, 1995
Review of Order from the Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado WC No. 3-061-698.
ORDER AFFIRMED.
Withers, Seidman Rice, P.C., Gudrun Rice, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Petitioner.
Curt Kriksciun, Denver, Colorado, for Respondents Roaring Fork Aggregates and Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority.
Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Timothy M. Tymkovich, Solicitor General, Jill M.M. Gallett, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent Subsequent Injury Fund.
No Appearance for Respondents Industrial Claim Appeals Office and Director, Division of Workers’ Compensation.
Division II
Criswell and Roy, JJ., concur.
Opinion by JUDGE BRIGGS.
[1] Steve Pacheco (claimant) petitions for review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) directing respondents Roaring Fork Aggregates (Colorado employer) and the Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority (CCIA) to pay a portion, but not all, of his permanent total disability benefits and dismissing the Subsequent InjuryPage 873
Fund (SIF) from the case. Claimant contends the Panel erred in its determination that, even though permanent total disability resulted only when a Colorado industrial disability worsened after he had incurred a second out-of-state industrial disability, the second injury remained the “subsequent injury” for purposes of the SIF. He further contends the Panel erred in concluding that the SIF is therefore not liable for any portion of disability benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act). We affirm.
I.
[2] In 1989, claimant sustained an industrial injury to his back at the L4-L5 level while working for the Colorado employer. After surgery, the CCIA admitted liability for a 6% permanent partial disability. Claimant injured his back again in 1990 at the L5-S1 level while working for a different employer in Hawaii. A workers’ compensation claim was filed in Hawaii, and a second surgery, this time at the L5-S1 level, followed.
II.
[5] Claimant first contends that, because the worsened condition from the first injury is akin to a subsequent injury and because claimant’s permanent total disability is the result of a combination of the Hawaii injury and the worsened condition, the Panel erred in dismissing the SIF. We disagree.
[7] Before the SIF was established, the “full-responsibility” rule was in effect. Under that rule, an employer who hired a partially disabled employee was required to pay the entire disability award if the worker suffered another industrial injury and was declared permanently and totally disabled as a result. The SIF was established to encourage employers to hire partially disabled employees by mitigating the effects of the full-responsibility rule. See Climax Molybdenum Co. v. Walter, 812 P.2d 1168 (Colo. 1991). [8] Here, the first injury resulted in a compensable disability. It is at this point that § 8-46-101(1)(a) provides its mitigating effects. We therefore reject the contention that the subsequent injury for purposes of the SIF occurred after the Hawaii accident when the condition caused by the first accident worsened. [9] We do not read the decision in Pikes Peak Community College v. Leonard, 865 P.2d 913 (Colo.App. 1993) as contrary to our conclusion. In that case, the first injury did not result in disability until after the second injury and disability. The court concluded that the term “subsequent injury,” for purposes ofIn a case where an employee has previously sustained permanent partial industrial disability and in a subsequent injury sustains additional permanent partial industrial disability and it is shown that the combined industrial disabilities render the employee permanently and totally incapable of steady gainful employment and incapable of rehabilitation to steady gainful employment, then the employer in whose employ the employee sustained such subsequent injury shall be liable only for that portion of the employee’s industrial disability attributable to said subsequent injury, and the balance of compensation due such employee on account of permanent total disability shall be paid from the subsequent injury fund as is provided in this section.
Page 874
the SIF statute, contemplates the existence of a previous disability. Here, however, the ALJ found, and respondents admitted, permanent disability prior to the 1990 injury in Hawaii.
[10] We therefore conclude that the ALJ and the Panel did not err in determining that the second accident resulted in the subsequent injury for purposes of § 8-46-101(1)(a). III.
[11] Claimant, in effect, separately contends that the SIF should be liable for that portion of permanent disability benefits not attributable to the subsequent injury, even if the subsequent employer is an out-of-state employer not subject to liability under the Act. We again disagree.
IV.
[16] Claimant next contends that the CCIA is responsible for all of the permanent total disability benefits because the worsened condition resulting from the first injury caused his permanent total disability. Because this issue was raised for the first time in the petition for review in this court, we will not consider it. See Apache Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 717 P.2d 1000
(Colo.App. 1986).