4-192-809 (1998). DAVID D. CASH (Final Order 1).

• Case Date: December 22, 1998
• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 1998. 4-192-809 (1998). DAVID D. CASH (Final Order 1) INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF DAVID D. CASH, Claimant, v. JACK F. BUHL D/B/A CIBOLA CONSTRUCTION, Employer, and COLORADO COMPENSATION INSURANCE AUTHORITY, Insurer, Respondents.W. C. No. 4-192-809FINAL ORDER The claimant seeks review of a Corrected Lump Sum Order of the Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation (Director) denying his request for a lump sum distribution of benefits. The claimant contends that the Director abused her discretion in denying the request because she considered a pending appeal. We affirm. In a previous order, we held that the claimant is entitled to the full payment of permanent partial disability benefits in the amount of $36,568.90, based on a Final Admission of Liability filed by the respondents. See Cash v. Cibola Construction, W.C. No. 4-192-809 (April 17, 1998) (copy in file). In so doing, we rejected the respondents' contention that they are not liable for the full payment because they are entitled to a credit for prior permanent partial disability payments. The respondents appealed and our order was affirmed in Cibola Construction v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, ___ P.2d ___ (Colo. App. No. 98CA0815, November 12, 1998). There, the court ruled that the issue under consideration concerned the "enforcement" of the Final Admission of Liability filed by the respondents. The court concluded that the respondents' failure to reserve the credit in the final admission rendered the respondents liable to "pay benefits in accordance with the amount represented" in the final admission. Neither our decision, nor that of the court, prohibited the respondents from filing a petition to reopen in an effort to establish the disputed credit. After our decision, but before the issuance of the court's opinion, the claimant filed with the Director an application for lump sum distribution. The claimant requested the Director to pay the "balance of PPD" owed as a result of our April 1998 order. The respondents objected arguing that a lump sum was improper because they had appealed our decision, and because they filed a petition to reopen based on error or mistake. On July 31, 1998, the Director entered an order denying the request for a lump sum. The Director stated that it was not in the best...