Posted by: Clay Thornton, Esq.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Tennapel v. Bowie Resources, <\/em>W.C. Nos. 4-779-040 & 4-844-545 (ICAO, April 5, 2013), the claimant suffered an industrial injury with the first employer, and that claim became closed pursuant to final admission. Subsequently, the claimant suffered a similar injury with a subsequent employer. At this point, an IME opined that claimant\u2019s current condition and need for treatment was 40% attributable to the new injury and 60% attributable to the injury with the first employer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ALJ explicitly credited the IME\u2019s opinion as to the percentages of causation. However, the ALJ determined that claimant suffered a new injury with the subsequent employer and denied claimant\u2019s petition to reopen the claim with the first employer. Despite denying the petition to reopen the claim with the first employer, the ALJ went on to order the first employer to reimburse the subsequent employer for 60% of claimant\u2019s temporary disability and medical costs pursuant to C.R.S. 8-42-104(6). The ICAO set aside this order and remanded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Primarily, C.R.S. 8-42-104(6) only permits apportionment \u201cas permitted by law.\u201d An order requiring reimbursement in a closed claim is not \u201cpermitted by law\u201d unless that claim is first reopened. Accordingly, the ALJ erred in ordering the first employer to reimburse the subsequent employer because the ALJ simultaneously denied the petition to reopen the claim with the first employer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the ICAO was unable to reconcile the ALJ\u2019s denial of the petition to reopen the first claim with the ALJ\u2019s explicit adoption of the IME\u2019s opinion that 60% of the claimant\u2019s present need for medical treatment was attributable to the first claim. For this reason, ICAO remanded the case back to the ALJ to resolve this conflict.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Posted by: Clay Thornton, Esq. In Tennapel v. Bowie Resources, W.C. Nos. 4-779-040 & 4-844-545 (ICAO, April 5, 2013), the claimant suffered an industrial injury with the first employer, and that claim became closed pursuant to final admission. Subsequently, the claimant suffered a similar injury with a subsequent employer. At this point, an IME opined… Continue reading An ALJ Cannot Order Reimbursement Between Carriers on a Closed Claim<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/epicdevsite.info\/2021-picardilawfirm2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/439","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/epicdevsite.info\/2021-picardilawfirm2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/epicdevsite.info\/2021-picardilawfirm2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/epicdevsite.info\/2021-picardilawfirm2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/epicdevsite.info\/2021-picardilawfirm2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=439"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/epicdevsite.info\/2021-picardilawfirm2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/439\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":440,"href":"https:\/\/epicdevsite.info\/2021-picardilawfirm2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/439\/revisions\/440"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/epicdevsite.info\/2021-picardilawfirm2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/epicdevsite.info\/2021-picardilawfirm2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/epicdevsite.info\/2021-picardilawfirm2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}