4-198-272 (1998). MATILDE ALMODOVAR (Order).

• Case Date: July 31, 1998
• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 1998. 4-198-272 (1998). MATILDE ALMODOVAR (Order) INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF MATILDE ALMODOVAR, Claimant, v. COLORADO FROZEN FOODS, Employer, and RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, Insurer, Respondents.W. C. No. 4-198-272ORDER The respondents filed a Petition to Review an order of Administrative Law Judge Henk (ALJ) dated January 16, 1998. We dismiss the Petition to Review without prejudice. The claimant alleged that she developed psychological problems as a result of a compensable injury on January 7, 1994. In an order dated January 13, 1998, the ALJ found the claimant sustained her burden to prove a compensable psychological injury. Therefore, the ALJ ordered the respondents to provide psychological treatment from the authorized treating providers. However, because the parties previously stipulated to reserve the issue of medical benefits, the respondents requested the ALJ issue a corrected order which omitted the award of medical benefits. See Tr. July 10, 1997, pp. 3-4. The ALJ issued a corrected order dated January 16, 1998, which found that the claimant proved a compensable psychological injury, and reserved all other issues for future determination. The January 16 order included a notice that the corrected order was "final" in the absence of a timely petition to review. The respondents contest the ALJ's finding of a compensable psychological injury, and therefore, they timely filed a Petition to Review the January 16 order. Nevertheless, the respondents argue that the January 16 order does not award or deny any specific benefits or penalties. Therefore, they argue the ALJ's compensability determination is interlocutory and not currently subject to review. The claimant contends that the ALJ's finding of a compensable psychological injury "triggers" the respondents' statutory obligation under § 8-42-101(1)(a), C.R.S. 1997, to provide reasonable and necessary medical treatment to cure or relieve the effects of the psychological injury. Therefore, the claimant contends that the ALJ's order inherently requires the respondents to pay medical benefits. We disagree with the claimant. Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 1997, provides that 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...