Opinion
W.C. No. 4-358-465.
October 25, 2006.
ORDER OF REMAND
The claimant seeks review of an order dated April 14, 2006 of Administrative Law Judge Henk (ALJ) that denied her petition to reopen. We set aside the order and remand this matter for additional findings.
This matter proceeded to hearing pursuant to the claimant's application for hearing on the issue of a petition to reopen the claim. A review of the record indicates that the following history is undisputed. The claimant sustained an industrial injury on September 16, 1997, and a motor vehicle accident on October 19, 2002. Tr. at 10-11. A final admission of liability was filed on September 3, 1998, and permanent partial disability benefits were paid based on a date for maximum medical improvement of May 7, 1998. Tr. at 7; Exhibit Z. The claimant filed a petition to reopen on February 16, 2001 and, again, on December 16, 2002. Tr. at 8.
At the beginning of the hearing, the parties and the ALJ discussed the issues surrounding the claimant's request to reopen her claim. The claimant made it clear at the hearing that she was not seeking additional medical care, but simply raised the question of whether her case should be reopened. Tr. at 16. The respondents did not endorse any issues for hearing. Tr. at 14. The claimant also stated that she was seeking to establish that her condition worsened in 2001 and may need additional treatment and disability benefits. Tr. at 15-16. She further advised the ALJ that it was premature to determine the effects of the motor vehicle accident on her current condition. Tr. at 11. The ALJ found that the claimant's current condition and need for medical treatment were not causally related to her industrial injury, but to her motor vehicle accident. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order at 2, paras. 10-11. She therefore denied the claimant's petition to reopen based on an alleged worsening of her condition.
A claim may be closed by a "final award" resulting from an admission, agreement, or a contested hearing, which grants or denies benefits. Burke v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 905 P.2d 1, 2 (Colo.App. 1994). Thus, unless an "award" of benefits expressly reserves other issues for future determination, the "award" closes the claim and requires the parties to satisfy the reopening requirements of § 8-43-303, C.R.S. 2006, before litigation of any further issues. Hanna v. Print Expediters Inc., 77 P.3d 863 (Colo. 2003); See Brown Root, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 833 P.2d 780, 784 (Colo.App. 1991).
Section 8-43-303(1) provides the ALJ may reopen any award on the ground of "an error, a mistake, or a change in condition." The ability to reopen a claim reveals a "strong legislative policy to the effect that . . . the goal of achieving a just result overrides the interest of litigants in obtaining a final resolution of their dispute." Padilla v. Industrial Comm'n, 696 P.2d 273, 278 (Colo. 1985). Although the power to reopen is discretionary, an abuse of discretion is shown when the law is misapplied. See Standard Metals Corp. v. Gallegos, 781 P.2d 142, 145 (Colo.App. 1989) (error of law in declining to consider petition to reopen not binding).
A claim may be reopened for a change in the condition, which refers "to a change in the condition of the original compensable injury or to a change in claimant's physical or mental condition which can be causally connected to the original compensable injury." Cordova v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 55 P.3d 186, 189 (Colo.App. 2002), quoting Chavez v. Industrial Comm'n, 714 P.2d 1328, 1330 (Colo.App. 1985). This change in condition relates to changes occurring after the claim is closed. See, e.g., City and Counter of Denver v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 58 P.3d 1162, 1164 (Colo.App. 2002) (discussing causal connections of changes in condition in case of reopening).
We do not address whether the claimant's petitions to reopen her claim should be granted or denied. However, we conclude that additional findings are required in order to address the claimant's previous condition. It is apparent from the ALJ's order that she did not consider whether the claimant was entitled to reopen her claim based upon an alleged worsening of her condition after the respondents filed a final admission, but prior to the claimant's car accident in October 2002. In a case where a petition to reopen has been filed an award of benefits may be made which predate the hearing or even benefits which predate the filing of the petition. See Moffat Coal Co. v. Giankos, 112 Colo. 585, 152 P.2d 681(Colo. 1944).
We therefore remand the matter for the ALJ's express consideration of the claimant's petition to reopen filed on February 16, 2001, and any objections to that petition. The ALJ shall also make any required findings as to whether the claimant sustained a change in condition, if any, between the time the final admission of liability on September 16, 1997, and her car accident on October 19, 2002, which can be causally connected to the original compensable injury sufficient to justify a reopening pursuant to § 8-43-303. See Standard Metals Corp., 781 P.2d at 144 (ALJ exercises discretion to determine whether claim should be reopened).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claimant's petition to review the ALJ's order dated January 14, 2006, is set aside and this matter is remanded for further findings.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ John D. Baird
____________________________________ Thomas Schrant
Veronica Caraveo, Denver, CO, David J. Joseph Company f/k/a Western Metals Recycling, CO, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 10770 Briarwood, Englewood, CO, Clisham, Satriana, Biscan, L.L.C., Keith E. Mottram, Esq., Denver, CO, (For Respondents).
The Morrell Law Office, Britton Morrell, Esq., Greeley, CO, (For Claimant).