(1) Notice of an injury, for which compensation and benefits are payable, shall be given by the employer to the division and insurance carrier, unless the employer is self-insured, within ten days after the injury, and, in case of the death of any employee resulting from any such injury or any accident in which three or more employees are injured, the employer shall give immediate notice thereof to the director. If no such notice is given by the employer, as required by articles 40 to 47 of this title, such notice may be given by any person. Any notice required to be filed by an injured employee or, if deceased, by said employee's dependents may be made and filed by anyone on behalf of such claimant and shall be considered as done by such claimant if not specifically disclaimed or objected to by such claimant in writing filed with the division within a reasonable time. Such notice shall be in writing and upon forms prescribed by the division for that purpose and served upon the division by delivering to, or by mailing by registered mail two copies thereof addressed to, the division at its office in Denver, Colorado. Upon receipt of such notice from a claimant, the division shall immediately mail one copy thereof to said employer or said employer's agent or insurance carrier.
(2) The director and administrative law judges employed by the office of administrative courts shall have jurisdiction at all times to hear and determine and make findings and awards on all cases of injury for which compensation or benefits are provided by articles 40 to 47 of this title. Except in cases of disability or death resulting from exposure to radioactive materials, substances, or machines or to fissionable materials, or any type of malignancy caused thereby, or from poisoning by uranium or its compounds, or from asbestosis, silicosis, and anthracosis, the right to compensation and benefits provided by said articles shall be barred unless, within two years after the injury or after death resulting therefrom, a notice claiming compensation is filed with the division. This limitation shall not apply to any claimant to whom compensation has been paid or if it is established to the satisfaction of the director within three years after the injury or death that a reasonable excuse exists for the failure to file such notice claiming compensation and if the employer's rights have not been prejudiced thereby, and the furnishing of medical, surgical, or hospital treatment by the employer shall not be considered payment of compensation or benefits within the meaning of this section; but, in all cases in which the employer has been given notice of an injury and fails, neglects, or refuses to report said injury to the division as required by the provisions of said articles, this statute of limitations shall not begin to run against the claim of the injured employee or said employee's dependents in the event of death until the required report has been filed with the division.
(3) In cases of disability or death resulting from exposure to radioactive materials, substances, or machines or to fissionable materials, or any type of malignancy caused thereby, or from poisoning by uranium or its compounds, or from asbestosis, silicosis, or anthracosis, the right to compensation and benefits shall be barred unless, within five years after the commencement of disability or death, a notice claiming compensation is filed with the division.
Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 500, § 1, effective July 1. L. 92: (1) amended, p. 1825, § 3, effective April 29. L. 94: (2) amended, p. 1873, § 1, effective June 1. L. 2005: (2) amended, p. 854, § 10, effective June 1.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 8-52-105 as it existed prior to 1990.
Notes of Decisions
Miller v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of the State, 985 P.2d 94 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 24× “Claimant contends that the Panel erred in construing § 8-43-103, C.R.S.1998, by finding that the tolling provision contained in § 8-43-103(2) did not also apply to the five-year limitations period provided for in § 8-43-103(3), C.”
Ellis v. Rocky Mountain Empire Sports, Inc., 602 P.2d 895 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 3× “”' Section 8-43-103, C.R.S.1973, provided that an employee who has not “opted out” was subject to the provisions of the Act.”
City of Colorado Springs v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 89 P.3d 504 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 5× “City of Colorado Springs (employer) seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) determining that a workers’ compensation claim filed by William Sopp (claimant) was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations in § 8-43-103(2), C.R.S.2003. We…”
Ryan v. Centennial Race Track, Inc., 580 P.2d 794 (Colo. 1978).
· cites it 3× “The first allegation of error relates to the constitutionality of section 8-43-103, C.R.S. 1973, 1 which provides: “8-43-103.”
City of Englewood v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 954 P.2d 640 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 8× “Pursuant to § 8-43-103(1), C.R.S.1997, an employer must provide notice to the Division within ten days after an employee incurs an injury for which compensation and benefits are payable.”
Schultz v. Allstate Ins., 764 F. Supp. 1404 (D. Colo. 1991).
· cites it 2× “1, 1990 and reenacted as Colo.Rev.Stat. § 8-43-103(2) (1990 Cum.Supp.”
White House Indus., Inc. v. May, 845 P.2d 544 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “3B) (now codified with changes at § 8-43-103(2), C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.). Although § 8-52-105(2) provides that the employer’s failure to report the injury tolls the limitations period in which the claimant must file a claim, the AU nevertheless determined that the statute was…”
Ricks v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 809 P.2d 1118 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “3B) (now codified with changes at § 8-43-103(2), C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.)) was tolled until claimant began losing time from work in 1988.”
Nichols v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 5× “1967); see § 8-43-103(2), C.R.S. 2024. After recapping Nichols’s testimony regarding her experience of her symptoms, the ALJ found that Nichols reasonably recognized the foregoing when she suffered a flare-up of her symptoms in October 2022 and could no longer alleviate the pain.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-43-103(1) — 3 cases
Miller v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of the State, 985 P.2d 94 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
“Claimant contends that the Panel erred in construing § 8-43-103, C.R.S.1998, by finding that the tolling provision contained in § 8-43-103(2) did not also apply to the five-year limitations period provided for in § 8-43-103(3), C.”
City of Englewood v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 954 P.2d 640 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“Pursuant to § 8-43-103(1), C.R.S.1997, an employer must provide notice to the Division within ten days after an employee incurs an injury for which compensation and benefits are payable.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-43-103(2) — 10 cases
Miller v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of the State, 985 P.2d 94 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
“Claimant contends that the Panel erred in construing § 8-43-103, C.R.S.1998, by finding that the tolling provision contained in § 8-43-103(2) did not also apply to the five-year limitations period provided for in § 8-43-103(3), C.”
City of Colorado Springs v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 89 P.3d 504 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
“City of Colorado Springs (employer) seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) determining that a workers’ compensation claim filed by William Sopp (claimant) was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations in § 8-43-103(2), C.R.S.2003. We…”
Schultz v. Allstate Ins., 764 F. Supp. 1404 (D. Colo. 1991).
“1, 1990 and reenacted as Colo.Rev.Stat. § 8-43-103(2) (1990 Cum.Supp.”
City of Englewood v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 954 P.2d 640 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“Pursuant to § 8-43-103(1), C.R.S.1997, an employer must provide notice to the Division within ten days after an employee incurs an injury for which compensation and benefits are payable.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-43-103(3) — 1 case
Miller v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of the State, 985 P.2d 94 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
“Claimant contends that the Panel erred in construing § 8-43-103, C.R.S.1998, by finding that the tolling provision contained in § 8-43-103(2) did not also apply to the five-year limitations period provided for in § 8-43-103(3), C.”
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.