When is a Workers’ Compensation Order reviewable – In the past, the Industrial Claims Appeals Panel has required that an order be frustratingly specific on what benefits are (or are not) awarded. Otherwise, the Panel refuses to hear an appeal, labeling the award as “interlocutory” and not subject to review.
When is a Workers’ Compensation Order reviewable
In the past, an order that “just” determines whether a work injury is compensable under Colorado Laws is not reviewable. This has led experienced work injury lawyers from Denver, Colorado, to Greeley, Colorado, to make sure that some particular benefit is requested so that the Order is final.
In Trujillo v. Goodrich Corporation, WC No. 4-940-537 (June 29, 2015) case, the parties stipulated that a particular medical bill would be paid or not, depending upon whether the Administrative Law Judge determined the repetitive work injury to be work-related. When the Administrative Law Judge denied the claim, he merely wrote:
The claimant’s claim for benefits under the Colorado Workers’
Compensation Act of Colorado is denied and dismissed.
On Appeal, both the insurance company and the claimant argued the Order was not “final” and therefore not reviewable. There are numerous cases that orders We previously have held that orders determining compensability without awarding or denying any specific benefits are interlocutory and not subject to review. See Padilla v. Markley Motors, Inc., W.C. No. 4- 923-087-02 (April 14, 2015); Merrett v. Colorado State Patrol, W.C. No. 4-912-519, 4- 912-520 (March 10, 2014); Ruiz-Plazola v. Denny’s Restaurant, W.C. No. 4-905-044 (October 2, 2013); Abenth v. Northside Christian Church, W.C. No. 4-893-024 (September 12, 2013); Scott v. Exempla Healthcare, Inc. W.C. No. 4-753-124 (March 4, 2009).
In this case, however, The Industrial Claims Appeals Panel (ICAP) disagreed.
The Goose’s Sauce May Not Apply to the Gander
The claimant’s application for a hearing, the respondent’s response to the application, and the CIS filed by both the claimant and the respondents all identify medical benefits, TTD benefits, and TPD benefits as issues to be heard at the hearing. Further, in his order, the ALJ expressly ordered that “[t]he claimant’s claim for benefits under the Colorado Workers’ Compensation Act of Colorado is denied and dismissed.” Order at 9. … Consequently, we conclude that the ALJ’s order does not merely determine compensability without denying any benefits. Rather, it expressly denies the medical benefits, TTD benefits, and TPD benefits sought by the claimant in his application for a hearing. Consequently, the ALJ’s order is final and reviewable.
Related: The old refrain, “What a difference a day makes,” doesn’t quite work with work injury claims
As attorneys who have helped injured workers for twenty years, we have to wonder whether the ICAP would have found the same if the Administrative Law Judge had ordered payment of medical benefits and temporary disability without specifying which benefits and how much TTD (and for what time frames) would be provided.
An Order generally denying medical benefits and TTD is reviewable, but an Order generally granting such benefits is not. Therefore, we recommend that injured workers still make every effort to make sure a specific benefit is awarded so that in the event of a win at the hearing, the order will be final. This is just one reason why injured workers need an attorney.
Connect with Kaplan Morrell
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/workcompcolorado
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kaplan_morrell
En Kaplan Morrell ofrecemos consultas gratuitas y hablamos español. https://kaplanmorrell.com/es/
Case Cite: Trujillo v. Goodrich Corporation, WC No. 4-940-537, (June 29, 2015)