(1) The compensation provided for in articles 40 to 47 of this title shall be reduced fifty percent:
(a) Where injury is caused by the willful failure of the employee to use safety devices provided by the employer;
(b) Where injury results from the employee's willful failure to obey any reasonable rule adopted by the employer for the safety of the employee; or
(c) (Deleted by amendment, L. 99, p. 581, § 2, effective July 1, 1999.)
(d) Where the employee willfully misleads an employer concerning the employee's physical ability to perform the job, and the employee is subsequently injured on the job as a result of the physical ability about which the employee willfully misled the employer. Notwithstanding any other provisions of articles 40 to 47 of this title, the provisions of this paragraph (d) shall apply in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed under section 8- 43-402.
(2) In the event the claimant or dependent is receiving periodic disability benefits for which a reduction in Colorado workers' compensation benefits has been made pursuant to section 8-42-103, the fifty percent reduction provided for in subsection (1) of this section shall be computed according to the rate of benefits received by the claimant or dependent after, and not before, such other reduction has been made.
(3) An admission of liability reducing compensation under this section must include a statement by a representative of the employer listing the specific facts on which the reduction is based.
(4) If the insurer or self-insured employer admits liability for the claim, any party may request an expedited hearing on the issue of whether the employer or insurer may reduce compensation under this section if the application for hearing is filed within forty-five days after the date of the admission reducing compensation under this section. The director shall set any expedited matter for hearing within sixty days after the date of the application. The time schedule for an expedited hearing is subject to the extensions set forth in section 8-43-209. If the party elects not to request an expedited hearing under this subsection (4), the time schedule for hearing the matter is as set forth in section 8-43-209.
(5) Nothing in this section limits the right of a party to submit evidence at a hearing scheduled under this section or section 8-43-209.
(6) Nothing in this section precludes a party from requesting a hearing pursuant to the time schedule set forth in section 8-43-209.
Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 494, § 1, effective July 1. L. 91: (2) added, p. 1351, § 3, effective May 29. L. 99: (1) amended, p. 581, § 2, effective July 1; (1)(d) added, p. 406, § 1, effective September 1. L. 2016: (3) to (6) added, (SB 16-217), ch. 272, p. 1127, § 2, effective July 1.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 8-52-104 as it existed prior to 1990.
Cross references: For the legislative declaration in SB 16-217, see section 1 of chapter 272, Session Laws of Colorado 2016.
Notes of Decisions
Wolford v. Pinnacol Assurance, 107 P.3d 947 (Colo. 2005).
· cites it 16× “Second, section 8-42-112(l)(d), C.R.S. (2004), which establishes a fifty-percent penalty in workers’ compensation for misleading statements made by a claimant to her employer about her physical ability to perform the job.”
Wild West Radio, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 905 P.2d 6 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 9× “See § 8-42-112, C.R.S. (1994 Cum.Supp.). II. In Wild West I, we addressed the petitioners’ contention that when a work injury is caused by a claimant’s intoxication or willful violation of a safety rule, § 8-42-112(1) requires a reduction in medical benefits.”
Arenas v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 8 P.3d 558 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “62, § 8-42-112(1)(c) at 495 (intoxication penalty now codified with changes at § 8-42-112.”
Support, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of the Colorado, 968 P.2d 174 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “1994), a division of this court addressed a similar question of statutory interpretation when it determined that medical benefits did not constitute “compensation” subject to a 50% reduction under § 8-42-112(1), C.R.S.1998, for safety violations and intoxication.”
Ackerman v. Hilton's Mech. Men, Inc., 914 P.2d 524 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “II. Claimant also contends that, even if the physician’s letters were properly admitted, there is insufficient evidence in the record to prove that claimant’s injuries were the result of intoxication.”
City of Las Animas v. Maupin, 804 P.2d 285 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “3B) (now codified at § 8-42-112(l)(a), C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.)).”
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Messina, 860 P.2d 556 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See § 8-42-112, C.R.S. (1992 Cum. Supp.); see also In re Death of Cline, 43 Colo.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-112(1): 4 cases
Support, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of the Colorado, 968 P.2d 174 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“1994), a division of this court addressed a similar question of statutory interpretation when it determined that medical benefits did not constitute “compensation” subject to a 50% reduction under § 8-42-112(1), C.R.S.1998, for safety violations and intoxication.”
Wild West Radio, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 905 P.2d 6 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
“See § 8-42-112, C.R.S. (1994 Cum.Supp.). II. In Wild West I, we addressed the petitioners’ contention that when a work injury is caused by a claimant’s intoxication or willful violation of a safety rule, § 8-42-112(1) requires a reduction in medical benefits.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-112(1)(c): 2 cases
Wild West Radio, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 905 P.2d 6 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
“See § 8-42-112, C.R.S. (1994 Cum.Supp.). II. In Wild West I, we addressed the petitioners’ contention that when a work injury is caused by a claimant’s intoxication or willful violation of a safety rule, § 8-42-112(1) requires a reduction in medical benefits.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-112(l)(a): 1 case
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-112(l)(b): 1 case
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-112(l)(c): 2 cases
Wild West Radio, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 905 P.2d 6 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
“See § 8-42-112, C.R.S. (1994 Cum.Supp.). II. In Wild West I, we addressed the petitioners’ contention that when a work injury is caused by a claimant’s intoxication or willful violation of a safety rule, § 8-42-112(1) requires a reduction in medical benefits.”
Ackerman v. Hilton's Mech. Men, Inc., 914 P.2d 524 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
“II. Claimant also contends that, even if the physician’s letters were properly admitted, there is insufficient evidence in the record to prove that claimant’s injuries were the result of intoxication.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-112(l)(d): 1 case
Wolford v. Pinnacol Assurance, 107 P.3d 947 (Colo. 2005).
“Second, section 8-42-112(l)(d), C.R.S. (2004), which establishes a fifty-percent penalty in workers’ compensation for misleading statements made by a claimant to her employer about her physical ability to perform the job.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.