The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Claim Appeals Office’s order in Barba v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, rejecting a claimant’s bid for statutory penalties under Colorado’s workers’ compensation law based on the wording of a Final Admission of Liability.
Fredy Barba argued an insurer’s reference to a specific physician’s report alongside its admission of maintenance medical benefits after maximum medical improvement violated § 8‑42‑107(8)(f), C.R.S., which requires admission of “related reasonable and necessary medical benefits” without limiting them to particular treatments. He asserted the reference improperly limited his maintenance benefits and warranted a penalty.
The appellate panel disagreed, concluding the statute requires coverage for all related benefits but does not prohibit an insurer from noting a physician’s report in a FAL, nor does that practice inherently limit benefits under the statute. Because the reference did not legally restrict Barba’s maintenance care, no penalty was appropriate.
The decision clarifies that technical features of FAL language, such as identifying the medical report on which an admission is based, are not by themselves penalties triggers, focusing enforcement on the substantive admission of benefits rather than form.