In Himes v. Petro Eng. & Constr., 61 P.3d 393 (Wyo. 2003), the Commission denied Himes' request for an increased permanent physical impairment rating. Id., 61 P.3d at 397. In making that determination, the Commission concluded that Himes failed to prove that her current physical complaints were related to a work injury. Id. The Division then used that finding to inform Himes' health care providers that it would no longer pay for medical treatment for Himes. Id. The Division later conceded that it should not have made any decision regarding Himes' future eligibility for benefits, as the Commission's order contained no language regarding future benefits. Id., 61 P.3d at 400. However, Himes claimed that this concession was insufficient because so long as the findings regarding causation were in the order, they could possibly have some future res judicata or collateral estoppel effect. Id., 61 P.3d at 400. Although we acknowledged that those might be available defenses to the Division, the Court concluded "it is not for this Court to decide if the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel will apply in a future proceeding." Id.