Opinion
W.C. No. 4-745-740.
September 17, 2008.
PROCEDURAL ORDER
On June 6, 2008, following certain proceedings and filings in this matter, Administrative Law Judge Friend (ALJ) issued a supplemental "Order Closing Claim" pursuant to section 8-43-301(6), C.R.S. 2008. The ALJ later transmitted the matter to us; however, we are unable to locate in the file any timely petition to review the order closing the claim. Therefore, we issue this order pursuant to § 8-43-301(9), C.R.S. 2008, which grants us power to "issue such procedural orders as may be necessary to carry out" our appellate review, remanding the matter to the Office of Administrative Courts.
This matter was set for hearing before the ALJ on April 30, 2008 on several issues including the compensability of the claim. The claimant failed to appear in person or by counsel. The ALJ struck the claimant's application for hearing and vacated the hearing. The ALJ further ordered that the claimant's claim for compensation and medical benefits be dismissed for lack of prosecution unless the claimant showed good cause in writing within thirty days from the date of the order why she failed to appear for the hearing and why the claim should not be so dismissed. The order further provided that if no good cause was shown within thirty days the claim would be closed by the April 30, 2008 Order to Show Cause.
The claimant filed a petition to review the Order to Show Cause along with other documents relating to the Order To Show Cause. The ALJ found that in all of the documents filed by the claimant that she did not state why she did not timely appear for the April 30, 2008, hearing and therefore the ALJ in an Order Closing Claim dated June 6, 2008 dismissed the claimant's claim for compensation and medical benefits pursuant to § 8-43-207(n), C.R.S. 2007.
The ALJ then transmitted the matter to us by order (green sheet) dated July 24, 2008. However, as noted, the record transmitted to us contains no petition to review of the ALJ's June 6, 2008, Order Closing Claim.
We note that administrative agencies must comply strictly with their enabling statutes, and have no authority to set aside or circumvent legislative mandates. Dodge v. Department of Social Services, 657 P.2d 969 (Colo.App. 1982). In this regard, we recognize that the administrative and judicial review provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act are complete, definitive and organic. Gardner v. Friend, 849 P.2d 817 (Colo.App. 1992).
Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2008 provides that any dissatisfied party may file a petition to review "an order which requires any party to pay a penalty or benefits or denies a claimant any benefit or penalty." The statutory scheme established for our review of an order is contingent on the existence of a petition to review. The procedural filing requirements of the Workers' Compensation Act are jurisdictional, and therefore, strictly construed. Schneider National Carriers, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 969 P.2d 817 (Colo.App. 1998).
The ALJ's original April 30, 2008, Order to Show Cause was interlocutory, since it ordered that the claimant's claim be dismissed for lack of prosecution unless the claimant showed good cause in writing within thirty days why the claim should not be dismissed. Orders that do not require payment of benefits or penalties, or deny the claimant either, are interlocutory and not subject to review. Natkin Co. v. Eubanks, 775 P.2d 88 (Colo.App. 1989). The claimant filed a petition to review and documents within thirty days. However the ALJ found, in his June 6, 2008, Order Closing Claim that the claimant had failed to show good cause why her claim should not be closed.
We consider the ALJ's June 6, 2008 Order Closing Claim to be a supplemental order, issued pursuant to the ALJ's authority under section 8-43-301(5), C.R.S. 2008. Therefore, the claimant was required to file a petition to review the supplemental order within twenty days from the date of the certificate of mailing of the supplemental order. The filing of a petition to review the first order does not relieve the claimant of the obligation to file a petition to review the supplemental order. Schneider Nat. Carriers, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, supra. The record before us does not contain a petition to review the June 6, 2008 order and, thus, we are without jurisdiction to review that order. See Buschmann v. Gallegos Masonry, Inc., 805 P.2d 1193 (Colo.App. 1991). Of course, if a timely petition to review the supplemental order was filed and was omitted from the record through inadvertence, the matter may be retransmitted to us after inclusion of the petition to review. However, our jurisdiction depends upon the filing of a timely petition to review and without one we lack the authority to review the order. See Brodeur v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 159 P.3d 810, (Colo.App. 2007); Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 969 P.2d 817 (Colo.App. 1998); Buschmann v. Gallegos Masonry, Inc., 805 P.2d 1193 (Colo.App. 1991). In this regard, we note that the ALJ stated in his "Order Closing Claim" that the claimant had filed a petition to review; however, we surmise that the petition to review the ALJ referred to was the one filed with regard to the show cause order. As noted, that order was interlocutory at the time the petition to review was filed, since the claim had not then been closed and merely required the claimant to show the reasons for her failure to appear at the hearing. More importantly, however, as previously noted, the ALJ's Order Closing Claim was a supplemental order that the claimant was required to appeal. Therefore, there is no petition to review presently before us.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the record transmitted to us shall be returned to the Office of Administrative Courts.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
_____ Curt Kriksciun
_____ Thomas Schrant
JOY STEWART, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, (Claimant).
HOLDEN BUSINESS FORMS CO., MINNEAPOLIS, MN, (Employer).
THE HARTFORD, Attn: SEVIL LINK, HOUSTON, TX, (Insurer).
TAMA L. LEVINE, ESQ., C/O: BLACKMAN LEVINE, LLC, DENVER, CO, (For Respondents).