Director of the Division of Labor v. Smith

725 P.2d 1161, 1986 Colo. App. LEXIS 1064
CourtColorado Court of Appeals
DecidedAugust 7, 1986
DocketNo. 85CA0888
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 725 P.2d 1161 (Director of the Division of Labor v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Colorado Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Director of the Division of Labor v. Smith, 725 P.2d 1161, 1986 Colo. App. LEXIS 1064 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

STERNBERG, Judge.

In this workmen’s compensation case, the Director of Division of Labor, as Administrator of the Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF), seeks review of an order of the Industrial Commission granting claimant Paul E. Smith’s petition to reopen his claim. We dismiss the petition for review.

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to his spine in January 1979. Prior to determination of permanent disability, SIF was joined as a respondent. Claimant subsequently settled with the employer and its insurance carrier and SIF was dismissed as a party.

On June 10, 1983, claimant filed a petition to reopen his claim naming the employer, its insurance carrier, and SIF as respondents. On June 4, 1985, the Commission reversed a determination by the hearing [1162]*1162officer that the settlement agreement barred claimant from reopening his claim and remanded the case for determination of benefits.

On review, SIF contends that it is not a proper party to the reopening proceedings because it was previously dismissed as a result of the settlement agreement. We conclude that the order of the Commission is not a final order subject to review and accordingly dismiss the petition for review.

Pursuant to § 8-53-114(2), C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.), an order is “final” and thus reviewable if it “requires any party to pay a penalty or benefits or denies a claimant any benefits.” See American Express v. Industrial Commission, 712 P.2d 1132 (Colo.App.1985). Thus, because it neither required nor denied the payment of a penalty or benefits, the June 4,1985, order is not reviewable.

The petition for review is dismissed.

PIERCE and METZGER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States Fidelity & Guaranty, Inc. v. Kourlis
868 P.2d 1158 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1994)
Natkin & Co. v. Eubanks
775 P.2d 88 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
725 P.2d 1161, 1986 Colo. App. LEXIS 1064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/director-of-the-division-of-labor-v-smith-coloctapp-1986.