Dyrkopp v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

Judge MARQUEZ

dissenting:

Because I disagree with the majority's interpretation of § 8-48-203(2)(b)(II), CRS. 2000, I respectfully dissent.

After claimant received medical and temporary disability benefits, the Denver School District, by its insurer, the Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, filed a final admission. Claimant did not object to the final admission within 60 days, and the case was automatically closed. She then sought additional benefits and filed a petition to reopen. She also argued that the final admission of liability was not sufficient to close the claim with respect to the issue of permanent total disability benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that the final admission closed all issues, including permanent total disability benefits, and that claim-< ant had failed to establish a basis for reopening her claim.

Section 8—43—203(2)(b)(II) provides in pertinent part: *

An admission of liability for final payment of compensation shall include a statement that this is the final admission by the workers' compensation insurance carrier in the case, that the claimant may contest this admission if the claimant feels entitled to more compensation ... and notice to the claimant that the case will be automatically closed as to the issues admitted in the final admission if the claimant does not, within thirty days after the date of the final admission, contest the final admission in writing and request a hearing on any disputed issues that are ripe for hearing . (emphasis added)

Section 8-48-203(2) provides for continuing jurisdiction over any issue not specifically addressed in a noncontested final admission of liability. Daleo Industries, Inc. v. Gareiq, 867 P.2d 156 (Colo.App.1998).

The final admission of liability filed by the Denver School District provides that "all benefits or penalties not admitted below are hereby specifically denied." An "x" was placed before "Medical To Date" and "TTD" and before "Working Unit." What was not marked was the blank before "Permanent Total Disability."

On the reverse side of the form there is a notice to claimant that states in part that if the claimant does not notify the division in writing that the claimant objects to the final admission, "your case will automatically be closed as to the issues admitted in the final admission."

In Dalco Industries, Inc. v. Gareia, supra, a division of this court held that the final admission of liability was limited to an admission for temporary and permanent partial disability, and, therefore, the issue of penalties was not closed.

Similarly, here, the permanent total disability space on the final admission was not marked, and that issue was not closed. Further, the notice on the reverse side of the form implies that because permanent total disability was not admitted, the case would not automatically be closed as to that issue.

*824The majority points to the notice on the reverse side of the final admission that claimant was required to write a letter to the division stating her objection if she disagreed with the "amount or type of benefits" that the employer agreed to pay. The majority then concludes that, because claimant did not file a timely written objection, she waived the right to seek permanent total disability benefits. In my view, claimant acted consistently with the notice. She did not disagree with the amount or type of benefits the employer agreed to pay. Because she was advised that the case would automatically be closed "as to the issues admitted," she acted reasonably in assuming that permanent total disability was an issue that would not automatically be closed.

Accordingly, I would reverse the final order of the Panel and allow claimant to address the issue of permanent total disability benefits.