“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.
Tag Archives: Industrial Claim Appeals Office
Patrick Youngs, v, Industrial Claim Appeals Office; White Moving and Storage, Inc.; and Pinnacol Assurance, 2013COA54 (April 11, 2013)
City of Littleton and CCMSI v. Industrial Claims Appeals Office, Julie Christ, and Michelle Parris 2012COA187 (November 1, 2012)
Radiation causes cancer; does being a firefighter also cause cancer? Causation is never that simple, as this 68 page opinion and dissent demonstrate. In this case, a firefighter gets brain cancer and claims it was related to his employment and the hazardous chemicals to which he was exposed on the job. The central issue on appeal is what evidence the fire district must present to prove that being a firefighter did not cause the cancer? In a typical toxic tort case, the burden would be on the firefighter. But in Colorado there is a special statute that shifts the burden to the employer to prove that the employment could not have caused cancer, and that it did not cause cancer in this firefighter. The court found the employers’ evidence did not meet that burden because it could not disprove the presumption that employment-related exposure to toxic substances was the source of the cancer.
Western Logistics, Inc., d/b/a Diligent Delivery Systems, v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 2012COA186 (October 25, 2012)
Delivery drivers being directed and controlled are not independent contractors. The Division of Employment and Training made a determination that 220 drivers working for a delivery business were employees for unemployment tax liability purposes, notwithstanding language in the drivers’ contracts stating they were independent contractors. The court of appeals upheld the administrative ruling based on the following facts: 1) the drivers were not customarily engaged in the delivery business, 2) they did not offer those services to others, 3) they were paid under their own names, 4) the business set prices, determined clients, and required compatible cell phones, among others, and 5) employer could terminate contracts without penalty, demonstrating a right to control the drivers. Thus, the drivers were employees for unemployment tax purposes under CRS 8-70-115(1)(b).