Director hearing in Colorado

1986Ball v. Industrial Commission, 30 Colo.App. 583 , 503 P.2d 1040 (1972), partially overruled on other issues, Kuckler v. Whisler, 191 Colo. 260 , 552 P.2d 18 (1976) (construing C.R.S. 1963, § 81-14-19).

1986Ball v. Industrial Commission, 30 Colo.App. 583 , 503 P.2d 1040 (1972), partially overruled on other issues, Kuckler v. Whisler, 191 Colo. 260 , 552 P.2d 18 (1976) (construing C.R.S. 1963, § 81-14-19).

1986Ball v. Industrial Commission, 30 Colo.App. 583 , 503 P.2d 1040 (1972), partially overruled on other issues, Kuckler v. Whisler, 191 Colo. 260 , 552 P.2d 18 (1976) (construing C.R.S. 1963, § 81-14-19).

1986Ball v. Industrial Commission, 30 Colo.App. 583 , 503 P.2d 1040 (1972), partially overruled on other issues, Kuckler v. Whisler, 191 Colo. 260 , 552 P.2d 18 (1976) (construing C.R.S. 1963, § 81-14-19).

1985Contending that this amendment is procedural and therefore applies to Savio’s case, see Krumback, 676 P.2d 1215 , Travelers reiterates its position that the Division of Labor has exclusive jurisdiction over this action.

1985Contending that this amendment is procedural and therefore applies to Savio's case, see Krumback, 676 P.2d 1215 , Travelers reiterates its position that the Division of Labor has exclusive jurisdiction over this action.

1985The director or the hearing officer could have summarily denied claimant’s petition to reopen for failure strictly to comply with Commission Rule XB, 7 Code Colo. Reg. 1101-3, because the doctor’s report did not “contain an estimate of the percentage of impairment and the additional periods of temporary disability, if any.” See Savio House v. Dennis, 665 P.2d 141 (Colo.App.1983).

1984Ricci v. Davis, 627 P.2d 1111 (Colo.1981). [1] Article 53 of the Workmen's Compensation Act was repealed and reenacted in 1983. §§ 8-53-101 to 129, 3 C.R.S. (1983 Supp.).

1984As a practical matter, however, the evidentiary findings—if upheld by the commission—will often place the ultimate fact of proximate causation beyond dispute. [6] In Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 151 Colo. 18 , 379 P.2d 153 (1962), this court held that a work-related injury which aggravates a pre-existing condition is the legal cause of whatever disability results from such aggravation.

1984As a practical matter, however, the evidentiary findings—if upheld by the commission—will often place the ultimate fact of proximate causation beyond dispute. [6] In Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 151 Colo. 18 , 379 P.2d 153 (1962), this court held that a work-related injury which aggravates a pre-existing condition is the legal cause of whatever disability results from such aggravation.

1984There we held that, although the SIF is not a legal entity, “the Director is the proper party to represent the SIF and to safeguard its interests in workmen’s compensation proceedings.” Sears, Roebuck & Co., 682 P.2d at 18 . 3 In the instant case, the hearing officer’s order to the director of the division of labor to file a petition for review or a brief in opposition to the claimant’s petition, and the director’s compliance with that order, make clear that both the director and the hearing officer considered the director the proper party to protect the SIF’s interest in the context of this c

1943That such reliance was justified and hence constitutes a sufficient defense to the Director’s claim for said delinquent taxes counsel cite and rely upon Pratt v. Denver, 72 Colo. 51 , 209 Pac. 508 .

1943That such reliance was justified and hence constitutes a sufficient defense to the Director’s claim for said delinquent taxes counsel cite and rely upon Pratt v. Denver, 72 Colo. 51 , 209 Pac. 508 .