Opinion
W.C. No. 4-200-320.
November 25, 2011.
ORDER
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Margot W. Jones (ALJ) dated July 27, 2011, that denied the claimant's motion for summary judgment and determined that Dr. Fall is the claimant's authorized treating physician. We dismiss the petition to review without prejudice.
A hearing was held to determine the authorized treating provider. Based on stipulated facts, the ALJ entered an order denying the claimant's motion for summary judgment and determined that Dr. Fall was the authorized treating physician.
The claimant filed a petition to review arguing that the ALJ erred in her determination that Dr. Ring could not make a referral in the normal progression of authorized treatment. Alternatively, the claimant argued that the ALJ erred by failing to make findings or conclusions on the application of § 8-43-404(5)(a)(I)(A), C.R.S. to the facts of this claim.
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, nor 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).
As we read the ALJ's order here, the only issue decided was authorization concerning Dr. Fall. An ALJ's determination that a physician is "authorized" refers to the physician's legal authority to treat, and is distinct from whether treatment is "reasonable and necessary" within the meaning of § 8-42-101(1)(a), C.R.S. See Mason Jar Restaurant v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 862 P.2d 1026 (Colo. App. 1993). A finding that treatment is "authorized" is not itself a "medical benefit." One Hour Cleaners v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 914 P.2d 501 (Colo. App. 1995).
Consequently, we previously have held that an order which determines a physician's "authorization," but does not award or deny payment for that physician's treatment, is not a final order for purposes of appellate review. See Hammond v. H R Repair Towing, W.C. No. 4-708-574 (January 4, 2008); Johnson v. Brisk Transportation Services, L.P., W.C. No. 4-701-838 (November 27, 2007); Binns v. Labor Ready Inc., W.C. No. 4-681-275 (January 11, 2007); Hodgman v. Tony's Meat Inc., W.C. No. 4-677-755, (January 9, 2007); Matthews v. United Parcel Service, W.C. No. 4-325-652 (December 15, 1997). We adhere to our prior conclusions.
Because the ALJ's order in this case does not award or deny the claimant any particular medical benefit, it is not currently subject to review. See Director of Division of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161 (Colo. App. 1986).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition to review the ALJ's order dated July 27, 2011, is dismissed without prejudice.
____________________________________ Brandee DeFalco-Galvin
____________________________________ Kris Sanko
Colorado Court of Appeals
101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202
Industrial Claim Appeals Office 633 17th St., Suite 600 Denver, CO 80202
Attorney Generals Office State Services Section
1525 Sherman St., 7th Floor Denver, CO 80203
STANLEY J. JONES, 3663 S. SHERIDAN BLVD. #A-16, DENVER, CO, 80235 (Claimant), INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA/ACE, USA, Attn: WES JOHNSON, TAMPA, FL, (Insurer), BUESCHER, GOLDHAMMER KELMAN, PC, Attn: JOSEPH M. GOLDHAMMER, ESQ., DENVER, CO, (For Claimant).
LEE KINDER, LLC, Attn: GREGORY B. CAIRNS, ESQ./TIFFANY SCULLY KINDER, ESQ., DENVER, CO, (For Respondents).