4-321-801 (2004). PATRICIA CZIKALLA.

• Case Date: March 03, 2004
• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 2004. 4-321-801 (2004). PATRICIA CZIKALLA INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF PATRICIA CZIKALLA, Claimant, v. WIDEFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT #3, Employer, and INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurer, Respondents.W. C. No. 4-321-801ORDER The respondents seek review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Mattoon (ALJ) insofar as it ordered them to either modify the claimant's car or provide a new vehicle capable of transporting the claimant's electric cart. We set the order aside and remand for further proceedings and entry of a new order. The claimant sought a hearing to determine her entitlement to medical benefits. The claimant alleged that she is entitled to various modifications to her home, as well as a vehicle capable of transporting an electric cart which she uses for mobility. At the hearing, both parties offered documents which were received into evidence. Thereafter, counsel for the claimant and counsel for the respondents engaged in a lengthy discussion with the ALJ concerning the nature of the proposed modifications to the claimant's home. Near the end of the hearing claimant's counsel also mentioned the claimant's desire to have the respondents provide a vehicle capable of transporting the electric cart so the claimant could "go to the mall and do grocery shopping." Counsel stated the claimant would be willing to surrender her existing vehicle to the respondents in exchange for one which would transport the cart. (Tr. Pp. 25-26). Respondents' counsel replied that the claimant had not shown any "medical necessity" for such a vehicle and that counsel did not believe the claimant could make such a showing under the holding in Bogue v. SDI Corp., Inc., 931 P.2d 477 (Colo. App. 1996). The ALJ then inquired whether the parties wanted the judge to determine the "trade of the car," and claimant's counsel responded affirmatively. Respondents' counsel replied that the respondents, if possible, would like an opportunity to determine whether the cart fits in the claimant's current vehicle. Claimant's counsel stated the claimant had no objection to providing the car for examination. The discussion then returned to modification of the claimant's home. The hearing was concluded without the receipt of any testimonial evidence. The ALJ then entered an order on July 15, 2003. The...