Inherent in these requirements is the rule that parties will receive adequate notice of both the factual and legal bases of the claims and defenses to be adjudicated. See Hendricks v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 809 P.2d 1076, 1077 (Colo. App. 1990); Carson v. Academy School District #20, W.C. No. 4-439-660 (April 28, 2003). The claimant's mere reference to a failure to "acknowledge" Dr. Knight as an ATP does not provide the respondents with sufficient information to know the basis of the penalty claim and to be able to defend the claim.
Inherent in these requirements is the rule that parties will receive adequate notice of both the factual and legal bases of the claims and defenses to be adjudicated. See Hendricks v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 809 P.2d 1076, 1077 (Colo.App. 1990); Carson v. Academy School District #20, W.C. No. 4-439-660 (April 28, 2003). The specific ground for the penalty listed by the respondent in its application for hearing was that "Claimant has failed to provide respondents with a provider list and with less restrictive releases as Ordered by ALJ De Marino on April 19, 2006."
We adhere to our previous conclusions. See Hendricks v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, supra; Carson v. Academy School District #20, W.C. No. 4-439-660 (April 28, 2003). The claimant's May 7, 2001 Application for Hearing requested penalties because the April 24, 2001 FAL alleged an "overpayment."
We adhere to our previous conclusions. See Hendricks v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 809 P.2d 1076 (Colo.App. 1990); Carson v. Academy School District #20, W.C. No. 4-439-660 (April 28, 2003) (due process denied where respondents given inadequate notice of legal basis for alleged penalties). As found by the ALJ, the claimant's August 9, 2001 Application for Hearing "did not identify either the physician, report, or dates to which the penalty related."