4-140-564 (1999). JANET BERNDT.

• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 1999. 4-140-564 (1999). JANET BERNDT INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF JANET BERNDT, Claimant, v. HOLLY NURSING CARE CENTER, Employer, and SELF INSURED, Insurer, and SUBSEQUENT INJURY FUND, Respondents.W. C. Nos. 4-140-564 and 4-187-415FINAL ORDER The respondent, Holly Nursing Care Center (Holly) seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Wheelock (ALJ) which required them to pay permanent total disability benefits without apportionment, and awarded future medical benefits. We affirm. The ALJ found that the claimant suffered a compensable injury on October 22, 1991, when she fell and injured her back. The ALJ also found that on February 25, 1992, the claimant sustained a new injury in the nature of an occupational disease, which caused internal injuries and resulted in rectocele and cystocele. The claimant was employed by Holly at the time of both injuries. ALJ determined that as a result of the injuries the claimant has constant severe back pain, loss of bowel and bladder control, the need to lay down frequently, and medical restrictions which preclude her from lifting over ten pounds and sitting for more than four hours. On conflicting medical and vocational evidence, the ALJ determined that the combined effects of the industrial injuries render the claimant unable to earn any wages. Therefore, the ALJ determined the claimant is permanently and totally disabled. The ALJ further determined that the claimant's rectocele and cystocele conditions are 50 percent attributable to the claimant's pregnancies. However, the ALJ determined that the claimant's pre-existing condition was asymptomatic before the 1992 industrial injury. Consequently, the ALJ refused to apportion permanent total disability under § 8-42-104(2), C.R.S. 1998. The ALJ also refused to apportion liability to the Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF), and therefore, the ALJ held Holly solely responsible for the claimant's permanent total disability benefits. The ALJ also ordered Holly to provide ongoing medical benefits as provided by Grover v. Industrial Commission, 759 P.2d 705 (Colo. 1988). I. On review, we first reject Holly's contention that the ALJ erroneously awarded Grover type medical benefits. The claimant is entitled to Grover type medical benefits where there is substantial evidence in the record to support a determination that future medical treatment will be reasonable and necessary to cure and relieve the effects of the industrial injury or prevent further deterioration of the claimant's condition. See Stollmeyer v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 916 P.2d 609 (Colo. App. 1995); Milco Construction v. Cowan, 860 P.2d 539 (Colo. App. 1992). In Grover the claimant was awarded ongoing...