Provo v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 01CA1239.

• Decision Date: 12 September 2002
• Docket Number: No. 01CA1239.,01CA1239.
• Citation: 66 P.3d 138
• Parties: Susan J. PROVO, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF the STATE OF COLORADO, Atmel Corporation, and Industrial Indemnity Company, Respondents, and Concerning Dworkin, Chambers & Williams, P.C., jointly; and Gregory K. Chambers, individually, Respondents.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

66 P.3d 138

Susan J. PROVO, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF the STATE OF COLORADO, Atmel Corporation, and Industrial Indemnity Company, Respondents, and Concerning Dworkin, Chambers & Williams, P.C., jointly; and Gregory K. Chambers, individually, Respondents.

No. 01CA1239.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

September 12, 2002.

Rehearing Denied November 7, 2002.

Certiorari Denied March 24, 2003.¹

Steven U. Mullens, P.C., Steven U. Mullens, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Petitioner.

Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Eric S. Rothaus, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent Industrial Claim Appeals Office.

No Appearance for Respondents Atmel Corporation and Industrial Indemnity Company.

Larry N. Harris, Littleton, Colorado, for Respondents Dworkin, Chambers & Williams, P.C. and Gregory K. Chambers.

Opinion by Chief Judge HUME.

In this workers' compensation case, Susan J. Provo (claimant) seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) dismissing her claim for penalties against Dworkin, Chambers & Williams, P.C. and Gregory K. Chambers (collectively attorneys), the law firm and individual attorney previously representing Atmel Corporation and its insurer, Industrial Indemnity Company (collectively employer). We affirm the order in part, set it aside in part, and remand the case with instructions for further proceedings.

In 1998, the first Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted a change of medical provider and ordered employer to pay "all reasonable and necessary medical expenses for treatment" by a particular chiropractor. The ALJ specifically found that "occasional chiropractic treatment for temporary relief is especially reasonable and appropriate for Grover [v. Indus. Comm'n, 759 P.2d 705 (Colo.1988) ] medical benefits for a claimant with such severe injuries and permanent consequences." This order was not appealed.

Claimant received treatment from the chiropractor and submitted bills to employer. The attorneys advised employer that the first ALJ had not determined the reasonableness of chiropractic treatment and had not required employer to pay any specific medical benefits. Based on this advice, employer refused to pay for the chiropractic treatment.

In 1999, a second ALJ found that the 1998 order indeed required payment for this treatment and that employer's refusal to pay was wrongful, deliberate, intentional, willful, unreasonable, and legally unsupportable. Penalties were assessed against employer under the penalty statute specific to medical benefits, § 8-43-401(2)(a), C.R.S.2001, in the amount of eight percent of the wrongfully withheld medical benefits.

Claimant then applied for a hearing on the issue of penalties against the attorneys, requested at the rate of $500 per day, under the general penalty statute, § 8-43-304(1), C.R.S.2001, for the attorneys' failure to obey the 1998 order, refusal to perform their duties, and interference with claimant's medical care. The attorneys moved to dismiss the penalty claim, asserting that the general provisions in § 8-43-304(1) did not apply here because only the specific provisions in § 8-43-401(2)(a) governing medical benefits apply to denials or late payments of medical bills. Furthermore, the attorneys asserted that they could not be held liable under the specific penalty statute because that statute imposes liability only on insurers and self-insured employers. Alternatively, the attorneys argued that even if the general penalty statute were applicable, penalties could not be assessed against them because the 1998 order was directed to employer, not the attorneys.

It appears, and the parties do not dispute, that the second ALJ denied the attorneys' motion to dismiss the penalty claim. However, a signed and dated order to that effect is not in the record before us.

Before a third ALJ, the attorneys filed a second motion to dismiss based on issue preclusion, asserting that claimant was barred from relitigating the issue of whether the general penalty statute, § 8-43-304(1), applied to this claim. The third ALJ granted that motion, not on issue preclusion grounds, but on the alternative ground raised in the attorneys' first motion to dismiss. Thus, the third ALJ found that the 1998 order to pay benefits was directed to employer, not the attorneys, and because the attorneys were not parties to that order, they could not be held liable for the refusal to pay claimant's medical benefits. The ALJ also found that, other than the alleged violation of the 1998 order, claimant had listed no other basis for the penalties. Claimant then sought review before the Panel, which affirmed.

I.

Claimant raises two procedural objections to the third ALJ's order, both of which we reject. We also reject claimant's argument that the ALJ erred in dismissing her claims for statutory violations.

A.

Claimant contends that the third ALJ exceeded his authority in reversing the order of the second ALJ. We disagree.

There is no prohibition against one judge rescinding an interlocutory order previously issued by another judge. Broyles v. Ft. Lyon Canal Co., 695 P.2d 1136 (Colo.1985)(every order made in an ongoing proceeding may be rescinded or modified during that proceeding upon proper grounds, and fact that another judge is sitting does not impair the authority of the court to act in this manner); Denver Elec. & Neon Serv. Corp. v. Gerald H. Phipps, Inc., 143 Colo. 530, 354 P.2d 618 (1960)(previously denied motion to dismiss can be renewed before another judge).

The denial of a motion to dismiss a claim for penalties is interlocutory and therefore may not be reviewed. See § 8-43-301(2), C.R.S.2001 (petition for review may be filed only if penalty claim is granted or denied); Feigin v. Digital Interactive Assocs., Inc., 987 P.2d 876 (Colo.App.1999) (denial of a motion to dismiss is normally not reviewable because it is not a final order); M & M Mgmt. Co. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 979 P.2d 574, 576 (Colo.App. 1998)(where ALJ denied penalty "at this point," order was interlocutory because it left open the possibility of further litigation of the issue).

Frequently, a judge uses the law of the case doctrine to rely on a previous ruling by another judge. Application of this doctrine, however, is discretionary, and a second judge may modify a prior ruling as necessary if new facts, changes in the applicable law, or other persuasive circumstances warrant such modification. In re Marriage of Burford, 26 P.3d 550 (Colo.App.2001); see People ex rel. Garner v. Garner, 33 P.3d 1239 (Colo.App. 2001)

(one division of appellate court denied motion to dismiss; then another division granted a similar motion that raised an additional argument, even though the first ruling might have been considered law of the case); Moore v. 1600 Downing St., Ltd., 668 P.2d 16 (Colo.App.1983)(reconsideration of a motion for summary judgment, even if based on the same issues argued in earlier motions to dismiss, is not barred by law of the case doctrine).

Here, because the second ALJ's denial of the attorneys' first motion to dismiss was interlocutory, the third ALJ could subsequently grant a dismissal.

B.

In a related contention, claimant asserts that the third ALJ erred in ruling on the motion sua sponte, thereby denying her due process, because she had no notice that the order of the second ALJ would be reconsidered. She also argues that she was denied due process because she was not afforded a hearing. Again, we disagree.

Although the two motions to dismiss were ostensibly different, the common issue was whether the specific, § 8-43-401(2)(a), or the general, § 8-43-304(1), penalty statute could apply to the attorneys. Because the third ALJ was required to assess the totality of the circumstances to resolve that issue, we perceive no impropriety in his revisiting all of the arguments that had been presented up to that time.

Furthermore, an ALJ may properly reconsider a ruling sua sponte, if the parties were afforded due process in the first ruling. Cf. Antelope Co. v. Mobil Rocky Mountain, Inc., 51 P.3d 995 (Colo.App. 2001)

(where court converted motion in limine to motion for summary judgment, and granted summary judgment without notice to the parties and a reasonable opportunity for them to argue the disputed issues of fact and to submit affidavits and other evidence, resulting prejudice required reversal). While dismissals on the parties' motions are preferred, an ALJ may dismiss a claim sua sponte, provided that the claimant had an opportunity to be heard. See Rubins v. Plummer, 813 P.2d 778 (Colo.App.1990). The opportunity to be heard may be satisfied by the filing of written objections and is not limited to a personal appearance in the presence of an ALJ. See In re Marriage of LeBlanc, 800 P.2d 1384 (Colo.App.1990).

Here, claimant was afforded an opportunity to be heard in connection with both motions when she filed responses. She was not entitled to appear in person before the ALJ. Accordingly, there was no due process violation.

C.

Claimant next contends that the third ALJ erred in determining that she sought penalties against the attorneys only for violation of the 1998 order. She argues that the attorneys' conduct supports the imposition of penalties for various statutory violations, which are also governed by § 8-43-304(1). She specifically asserts that the attorneys may have violated §§ 8-40-102(1), 8-43-402, and 8-43-503(3), C.R.S.2001, and that the ALJ erred in summarily dismissing these claims. We agree that claimant sufficiently raised these claims in the administrative proceedings, but the claims were properly dismissed nonetheless.

Claimant's application for hearing stated:

Claimant is seeking penalties at the rate of $500.00 per day under § 8-43-304(1) against [the attorneys] for their/his refusal to obey a lawfully issued Order, their/his refusal to perform duties lawfully enjoined and their/his

...