Ortiz v. I.C.A.O

43 Citing cases

  1. Youngs v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of State

    316 P.3d 50 (Colo. App. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    But review by the Panel and this court is limited to orders that require “any party to pay a penalty or benefits or den[y] a claimant any benefit or penalty.” Id. “The term ‘final order’ has ‘traditionally been interpreted as including only those orders that grant or deny benefits or penalties.’ ” Jefferson Cnty. Pub. Sch. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 181 P.3d 1199, 1200 (Colo.App.2008) (quoting Ortiz v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110, 1111 (Colo.App.2003)). ¶ 12 “Where an order neither awards nor denies benefits, it is merely interlocutory and is ‘not ripe for appellate review.’ ”

  2. Youngs v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo.

    2013 COA 54 (Colo. App. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    But review by the Panel and this court is limited to orders that require “any party to pay a penalty or benefits or den[y] a claimant any benefit or penalty.” Id. “The term ‘final order’ has ‘traditionally been interpreted as including only those orders that grant or deny benefits or penalties.’” Jefferson Cnty. Pub. Sch. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 181 P.3d 1199, 1200 (Colo. App. 2008) (quoting Ortiz v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110, 1111 (Colo. App. 2003)). ¶12 “Where an order neither awards nor denies benefits, it is merely interlocutory and is ‘not ripe for appellate review.

  3. Sanchez v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo.

    411 P.3d 245 (Colo. App. 2017)   Cited 7 times
    Declining to address "underdeveloped arguments" (quoting Antolovich v. Brown Grp. Retail, Inc. , 183 P.3d 582, 604 (Colo. App. 2007) )

    Thus, to be final and appealable, an ALJ's order "must grant or deny benefits or penalties." Flint Energy Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 194 P.3d 448, 449-50 (Colo. App. 2008) ; accord Ortiz v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 81 P.3d 1110, 1111 (Colo. App. 2003). ¶ 9 Because the Panel affirmed the ALJ's decision denying claimant's request for TPD and TTD benefits, that portion of the ALJ's order is final and appealable.

  4. Flint Energy Services, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

    194 P.3d 448 (Colo. App. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    CF I Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 731 P.2d 144, 146 (Colo.App. 1986). To be final, an order must grant or deny benefits or penalties. Ortiz v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110, 1111 (Colo.App. 2003) (final order has "traditionally been interpreted as including only those orders that grant or deny benefits or penalties.") Where an order neither awards nor denies benefits, it is merely interlocutory and is "not ripe for appellate review." U.S. Fid. Guar., Inc. v. Kourlis, 868 P.2d 1158, 1163 (Colo.App. 1994).

  5. Jefferson v. Industrial

    181 P.3d 1199 (Colo. App. 2008)   Cited 3 times
    Discussing whether order effectively precluded claimant from seeking benefits or required respondents to begin paying them

    " The term "final order" has "traditionally been interpreted as including only those orders that grant or deny benefits or penalties." Ortiz v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110, 1111 (Colo.App. 2003). In Ortiz, the ALJ entered an order concluding that a claimant's DIME was void.

  6. In the Matter of Sikkal v. MKBS, LLC, W.C. No

    W.C. No. 4-785-525 (Colo. Ind. App. Nov. 18, 2011)

    Consequently, an order must satisfy the finality criteria set forth in that statute or we lack jurisdiction. See Ortiz v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110, 1111 (Colo. App. 2003) (final order grants or denies benefits or penalties). Here, contrary to Pinnacol's argument, we conclude that ALJ Cain's order is final and reviewable.

  7. In the Matter of Potereiko v. May D, W.C. No

    W.C. No. 4-008-289 (Colo. Ind. App. Nov. 18, 2011)

    Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. Nelson, supra. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review orders or portions of orders which are not final and reviewable within the meaning of § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. Cf. Ortiz v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110 (Colo. App. 2003). We do not reach the respondents' remaining arguments.

  8. In the Matter of Geist v. Liberty Mut., W.C. No

    W.C. No. 4-839-225 (Colo. Ind. App. Oct. 11, 2011)

    Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review orders or portions of orders which are not final and reviewable within the meaning of § 8-43-301(2). Cf. Ortiz v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110 (Colo. App. 2003). Moreover, when construing a statute, the statutory scheme must be read as a whole "to give a consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all its parts."

  9. Crump v. Builders Asso. of Pagosa Springs, W.C. No

    W.C. Nos. 4-767-757 4-781-580 (Colo. Ind. App. Jan. 13, 2010)

    Orders which do not meet one of these criteria are interlocutory and not subject to immediate review. Ortiz v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110 (Colo. App. 2003); Natkin Co. v. Eubanks, 775 P.2d 88 (Colo. App. 1989). Generally, orders are not final if they do not fully dispose of the issue presented including the amount of benefits to be paid. Bestway Concrete v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 984 P.2d 680 (Colo. App. 1999); United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 988 P.2d 1146 (Colo. App. 1999).

  10. In re Sandoval v. Cargill Meat Solutions, W.C. No

    W.C. Nos. 4-730-533 4-729-809 (Colo. Ind. App. Jul. 9, 2009)

    In our opinion, ALJ Broniak's order was not interlocutory because it denied all benefits connected with the neck and shoulder claims. See Ortiz v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110, 1111 (Colo.App. 2003) (final order has "traditionally been interpreted as including only those orders that grant or deny benefits or penalties."). III.