Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 8
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-43-308 (2026)

Causes for setting aside award

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Upon hearing the action, the court of appeals may affirm or set aside such order, but only upon the following grounds: That the findings of fact are not sufficient to permit appellate review; that conflicts in the evidence are not resolved in the record; that the findings of fact are not supported by the evidence; that the findings of fact do not support the order; or that the award or denial of benefits is not supported by applicable law. If the findings of fact entered by the director or administrative law judge are supported by substantial evidence, they shall not be altered by the court of appeals.

Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 511, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 8-53-120 as it existed prior to 1990.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 72 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Allison v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of Colorado, 884 P.2d 1113 (Colo. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Allison v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of Colorado, 884 P.2d 1113 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 24× “Any person in interest, including the Colorado compensation insurance authority, being dissatisfied with any final order of the division, may file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the court of appeals against the industrial claim appeals office as defendant to modify or…”
Leewaye v. Ind. Claim Appeals Off. of State, 178 P.3d 1254 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “§ 8-43-308, C.R.S.2007. Therefore, we are restricted "to a review of legal errors in workers' compensation cases.”
Pinnacol Assurance v. Hoff, 2016 CO 53 (Colo. 2016). · cites it 2× “Section 8-43-307 allows dissatisfied parties to appeal a Panel order to the court of appeals, see § 8-43-307(1), and several subsequent sections circumscribe the nature and scope of that court’s review, see §§ 8-43-308 to -310. Section 8-43-313, in turn, allows a…”
Indus. Claim Appeals Off. v. Orth, 965 P.2d 1246 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 6× “Our review of the ICAO's order is conducted pursuant to section 8-43-308, and is substantially similar to the review described by section 8-43-301(8).”
Coates, Reid & Waldron v. Vigil, 856 P.2d 850 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 6× “)), has in an enumerated fashion set forth the precise grounds upon which the court of appeals may set aside an order by the ALJ: Upon hearing the action, the court of appeals may affirm or set aside such order, but only upon the following grounds: That the findings of fact are…”
Avalanche Indus., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 166 P.3d 147 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “As early as 1919, the legislature indicated an employee's AWW was the basis for computing benefits.”
City of Brighton v. Rodriguez, 318 P.3d 496 (Colo. 2014). · cites it 2× “2004); see also § 8-43-308, C.R.S. (20183) (providing that an appellate court may reverse an order of the ICAO if "the award or denial of benefits is not supported by applicable law").”
Martinez v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 176 P.3d 826 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See § 8-43-308, C.R.S.2006 (reviewing court must uphold the ALJ’s determination if supported by substantial evidence in the record); Brownson-Rausin v.”
Fulton v. Soopers, 823 P.2d 709 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 8× “[4] Appellate review of the ICAO's order is similarly governed by section 8-43-308, 3B C.R.S. (1991 Supp.) (formerly § 8-53-120, 3B C.”
Martinez v. Reg'l Transp. Dist., 832 P.2d 1060 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “This principle is statutorily mandated by § 8-43-308, C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.) and restricts our court to a review of legal errors in workers’ compensation cases.”
City of Loveland Police Dep't v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 141 P.3d 943 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “Section 8-43-308, C.R.S.2005; Cordova v. Indus.”
Pena v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 117 P.3d 84 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “Section 8-43-308, C.R.S. 2004. We give deference to the Panel’s interpretation of workers’ compensation statutes and will set that interpretation aside only if it is inconsistent with the clear language of the statute or the legislative intent.”
Show all 72 citing cases →
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.