Tag Archives: Final Order
Marilyn Marks v. Gessler, Colorado Secretary of State and Judd Choate, [Director of Elections], 2013COA115 (Aug. 1, 2013)
Patrick Youngs, v, Industrial Claim Appeals Office; White Moving and Storage, Inc.; and Pinnacol Assurance, 2013COA54 (April 11, 2013)
“Time is what we want most, but what we use worst.” – William Penn. In this workers’ compensation case, 2 Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) each issued an order denying Claimant’s claim for benefits based on 1) fraud, and 2) a worsening condition, respectively. Claimant appealed the first (interlocutory) order, before the second order was final. The court of appeals held that under CRS 8-43-301, Claimant was required to file his appeal of the interlocutory order after the final order. He didn’t, so the IACO lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the first order. The court also upheld the second order because the ALJ properly exercised her discretion to 1) refuse to touch the injured shoulder during the hearing, and 2) limit the cross-examination of the IME. Finally, Claimant’s request that the ALJ recuse herself after the hearing was untimely. The IACO’s decisions were upheld.
In the Interest of M.S. a Child, and Concerning S.S. and L.H., and F.S. and A.S., Intervenors, 2012COA211 (November 21, 2012)
In what may be the shortest court of appeals decision ever published, this sixteen-line opinion dismisses an appeal from an order adjudicating a child dependent and neglected, but which did not terminate parental rights. The trial court has not yet held a termination hearing, which, when termination is proposed, is also a dispositional hearing. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal without prejudice for lack of a final order, holding the matter was not ripe for review until after the termination hearing is held.
What voices should be at the table when deciding who should take care of a child who has been removed from the care of his parents? In this case, the child was removed from the care of the mother. The child stayed with a friend until moved to a foster home. Grandparents sought to intervene to request that the child be placed with them. The County and the Guardian Ad Litem opposed the grandparents’ request. The trial court agreed with the County because the grandparents did not have the child in their care for three months, as it believed was required under C.R.S. 19-3-507. The court of appeals first determined that it could decide the appeal by deeming the denial of the motion to intervene as a final order. The court then held that the statutory requirement of three months of care before gaining a right to intervene only applied to foster parents, but not grandparents or other relatives.