4-508-408 (2003). SALLY WILLIAMS.

• Case Date: November 17, 2003
• Court: Colorado

Colorado Workers Compensation 2003. 4-508-408 (2003). SALLY WILLIAMS INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICEIN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF SALLY WILLIAMS, Claimant, v. ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., / ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., / TYCO INTERNATIONAL, INC., Employer, and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, Insurer, Respondents.W. C. No. 4-508-408FINAL ORDER The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Jones (ALJ) insofar as the order granted "summary judgment" concerning the claimant's request for the imposition of penalties against the respondents. The respondents seek review of the ALJ's order insofar as it determined the respondents are not entitled to seek penalties under § 8-43-304(1), C.R.S. 2003, based on the claimant's violation of a discovery order. We affirm the dismissal of the claimant's request for penalties, set aside the ALJ's denial of penalties based on the discovery violation, and remand for entry of a new order on the discovery violation. The claimant alleged she sustained back injuries on June 18, 2001. Prior to the filing of any application for the hearing, the respondents served interrogatories on the claimant requesting information concerning the basis of the claim and benefits sought under the claim. The claimant did not respond to the interrogatories and on November 1, 2001, the respondents filed a motion to compel discovery. On November 15, 2001, a prehearing administrative law judge (PALJ) granted the motion and ordered the claimant to provide the requested information within 10 days. The claimant requested reconsideration of the order arguing that discovery is improper in the absence of a pending application for hearing. However, on January 11, 2002, the PALJ denied the request for reconsideration, ruling that §8-43- 207.5, C.R.S. 2003, grants the PALJ authority to rule on discovery issues despite the lack of a pending application for hearing. In January 2003, the respondents filed an application for hearing seeking penalties under § 8-43-304 based on the claimant's failure to comply with the PALJ's discovery orders. The claimant filed a response to application seeking penalties against the respondents for "manufacturing controversy despite knowing that this claim is on appeal" and for failing to deal with the claimant in good faith by "attempting to intimidate the Claimant with threats of penalties regarding discovery impermissibly sought." On April 16, 2003, the respondents filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that claimant's request for penalties failed to state a claim and should be dismissed as a matter of law. The claimant did not respond to this motion and the matter was taken up at the commencement of the hearing held on April 30, 2003. The...