Tag Archives: ICAO

Town of Castle Rock and CIRSA v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office and Mike Zukowski, 2013COA109 (July 3, 2013)

“Cancer is a number of diseases subsumed within one diagnostic label.” Mary Burton Maggie Watson. Firefighter sought workers compensation benefits from Town. Per CRS 8-41-209, certain cancers are presumed covered, unless the employer can show by a preponderance of medical evidence the disease did not occur on the job. Both parties stipulated the statute’s presumption of coverage applied, and the only issue on appeal was whether the Town overcame that presumption. An administrative judge held, and the Industrial Claims Appeals Office affirmed, that a defendant must establish a specific non-work-related cause of the cancer to overcome the presumption. The court of appeals remanded, holding that requiring an employer to establish a specific cause may be an insurmountable barrier, and the correct standard to overcome the presumption was a preponderance of the evidence.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2013/12CA2190-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9018&courtid=1

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Workers Compensation

Communications Workers of America, Local 7750 v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office 2012COA148 (August 30, 2012)

Unions are employers too, and, in this case, contested an award of unemployment compensation to a former employee – its president. Claimant worked for both Quest and as the union president, but was only paid by one or the other for the time spent on each job respectively. When the union merged and restructured, he lost his employment as union president. He filed for unemployment benefits from the union, which were granted. On appeal, the union argued that it only replaced Quest’s wages not that it paid “wages” itself. The union did not argue that it was not an employer or that it did not provide employment to Claimant. The court of appeals upheld the grant of benefits for two main reasons: 1) he received payment for required services on behalf of the union and, 2) failure to consider payments as wages could result in lost unemployment benefits from Quest too, by reducing available benefits.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/12CA0062-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8648&courtid=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Administrative, Workers Compensation