Summary
In Nolan v. Industrial Commission, supra, the Commission reversed some of the referee's findings and made its own findings based on the record.
Summary of this case from Gonzales v. Industrial CommissionOpinion
No. 77-616
Decided March 9, 1978.
Workmen's compensation claimant sought review of Industrial Commission order terminating temporary total disability payments.
Petition Dismissed
1. WORKERS' COMPENSATION — Temporary Total Disability Payments — Terminated — Permanent Disability — Not Resolved — Petition — Review Termination — Premature — Dismissed. Where, in workmen's compensation proceeding, temporary total disability payments were terminated but the issue of permanent disability arising from the same injury remained to be resolved, the claim had not been fully adjudicated, and therefore claimant's petition for judicial review as to the cessation of temporary disability payments was premature.
Review of Order from the Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado
Kenneth N. Kripke, Dennis W. Hartley, for petitioners.
J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Attorney General, Edward G. Donovan, Special Assistant Attorney General, John Kezer, Assistant Attorney General, Louis L. Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Industrial Commission of Colorado.
Zarlengo, Mott Zarlengo, Reed L. Winbourn, for respondents Joy Manufacturing — Denver Equipment Division, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
The petitioner, Manuel Munoz, (claimant) seeks review of an order of the Industrial Commission terminating temporary total disability payments from respondents Joy Manufacturing — Denver Equipment Division, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for an injury suffered in the course of his employment. We dismiss the petition.
On May 2, 1974, the claimant suffered a severe laceration to his right leg and lower abdomen with resulting nerve and muscle damage. The respondents paid temporary total disability payments until November 13, 1975, when they ceased such payments on the basis of a written report from the claimant's doctor which indicated that, since the claimant had declined to undergo surgery, he had achieved maximum medical improvement. The report also contained a rating as to permanent disability. The claimant requested a hearing to determine whether the payments were properly terminated by the respondents.
Following a hearing on April 21, 1976, the Commission terminated temporary total disability payments effective November 13, 1975, based upon the treating physician's written report and its findings that Joy Manufacturing had attempted to re-employ the claimant in a less strenuous job than the one he had previously held, and, that the claimant was able to perform this particular job. At the conclusion of the hearing, the claimant agreed to accept the employment offered by Joy Manufacturing on a trial basis. Resolution of the issue of permanent disability was deferred at the claimant's request.
The respondents contend that this petition must be dismissed because the Commission's order is not final for purposes of review. We agree.
Section 8-53-108, C.R.S. 1973, authorizes a review by this Court of any "finding, order or award" of the Commission. However, appeals may not be taken from interlocutory orders which do not either allow or deny a claim, Hayward v. Majestic Wax Co., 170 Colo. 203, 460 P.2d 74 (1969), as, for example, an order of the Commission determining that a case should be reopened, e.g., Industrial Commission v. Globe Indemnity Co., 145 Colo. 453, 358 P.2d 885 (1961), or an order determining that an accident is causally related to the claimant's employment, e.g., Dravo Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 32 Colo. App. 418, 513 P.2d 218 (1973).
[1] We conclude that where, as here, temporary total disability payments are terminated but the issue of permanent disability arising from the same injury must still be resolved, the petitioner's claim has not been fully adjudicated and thus, a petition for review as to cessation of temporary disability payments is premature.
Petition dismissed.
JUDGE COYTE and JUDGE STERNBERG concur.