(1) Upon receipt of a claim, the division shall notify any other interested parties of the claim by mail or electronic means in accordance with such rules as the director of the division may promulgate. The interested parties must be afforded seven calendar days after the date of the notice of the claim to present any information pertinent to the claim by mail, telephone, or electronic means in accordance with such rules as the director of the division may promulgate. The information must be received by the division within seven calendar days after said date. If the seventh calendar day falls on a weekend or a state holiday, the date must be moved to the first working day immediately following such weekend or holiday. The interested party may present information out of time only if good cause is shown. A deputy to be designated by the director of the division shall promptly examine all materials submitted. Whenever information submitted is not clearly adequate to substantiate a decision, the deputy shall promptly seek the necessary information. If it is necessary to obtain information by mail from any source, the information shall be received by the division no later than seven calendar days after the date of the request for information. On the basis of the deputy's review, the deputy shall determine the validity of the claim and, if valid, when payment shall commence, the amount payable, and the duration of payment. The deputy shall issue a decision in all cases, even if the claimant has insufficient qualifying wages, unless the interested employer did not receive notice of the claim, except when the separation from employment is due to a lack of work and no alleged disqualifying circumstances are indicated, or unless the claimant did not file a continued claim. The deputy's decision shall set forth findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. The division shall promptly provide all interested parties with copies of the deputy's decision.
(2) Notwithstanding articles 70 to 82 of this title, an initial determination of arithmetic computations, wage amounts, and dates of wage payments shall not be subject to immediate appeal. Interested parties who disagree with monetary determinations of the division may request reconsideration of determinations as the director of the division, by regulation, may prescribe. A reconsidered determination of the division is subject to the provisions of section 8-74-105.
Source: L. 76: Entire article R&RE, p. 354, § 1, effective October 1. L. 79: Entire section amended, p. 351, § 14, effective September 30. L. 81: (1) amended, p. 510, § 5, effective July 1. L. 82: (1) amended, p. 237, § 4, effective July 1. L. 86: (2) amended, p. 489, § 91, effective July 1. L. 2002: (1) amended, p. 336, § 1, effective April 19. L. 2007: (1) amended, p. 803, § 3, effective August 3. L. 2008: (1) amended, p. 998, § 1, effective August 5. L. 2020: (1) amended, (SB 20-207), ch. 296, p. 1473, § 5, effective July 14. Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 8-74-102 as it existed prior to 1976.
Notes of Decisions
Federico v. Brannan Sand & Gravel Co., 788 P.2d 1268 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Section 8-74-102, 3B C.R.S. (1986). A dissatisfied party may appeal a deputy's decision to a hearing officer.”
Hesson v. Indus. Com'n of State, 740 P.2d 526 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “See § 8-74-102, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B). For reasons not apparent from the record, no protest was filed by the employer at that time.”
Scofield v. Indus. Com'n of State of Colo., 697 P.2d 815 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
“We agree with the Commission that the amendment to § 8-74-102(2), which occurred subsequent to the announcement of Lowery , manifests the General Assembly’s intent to require proof of service on the Commission as a jurisdictional prerequisite to appellate review of final orders…”
Gutierrez v. Indus. Claim App. Off., 841 P.2d 407 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Under § 8-74-102(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B), the employer had twelve days from the date of mailing of the request to respond; the statute provides that "[s]uch information must be postmarked or received by the division within twelve calendar days from said date of mailing.”
Gutierrez v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of Colorado, 841 P.2d 407 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Under § 8-74-102(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B), the employer had twelve days from the date of mailing of the request to respond; the statute provides that “[s]uch information must be postmarked or received by the division within twelve calendar days from said date of mailing.”
Cordova v. Indus. Comm'n, 706 P.2d 810 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
“Under the Employment Security Act, it is the responsibility of the division of employment and training, in the first instance, and ultimately the Industrial Commission to determine the claimant’s eligibility for benefits.”
Katzson v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 5× “The Division issued a decision on March 8, notifying Katzson that it had lost its right to protest the award of unemployment benefits to McLachlan under section 8-74-102, C.R.S. 2024, which provides that an employer has seven days to present any information pertinent to the…”
Nettles v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 5× “Though he cites section 8-74-102(2), C.R.S. 2025, and Goldberg v.”
Funeral Directors v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “¶6 On September 19, 2024, a deputy for the Division notified FDS that it had lost its right to protest the award of unemployment benefits to LaLonde under section 8-74-102, C.R.S. 2024. That section provides that an employer has seven days to present any information pertinent to…”
Kuhr v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “” § 8-74-102(1), C.R.S. 2024. “Claims” under the Act include “valid initial claim(s)” and two types of reopened claims.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-102(1): 6 cases
Gutierrez v. Indus. Claim App. Off., 841 P.2d 407 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
“Under § 8-74-102(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B), the employer had twelve days from the date of mailing of the request to respond; the statute provides that "[s]uch information must be postmarked or received by the division within twelve calendar days from said date of mailing.”
Gutierrez v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of Colorado, 841 P.2d 407 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
“Under § 8-74-102(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B), the employer had twelve days from the date of mailing of the request to respond; the statute provides that “[s]uch information must be postmarked or received by the division within twelve calendar days from said date of mailing.”
Cordova v. Indus. Comm'n, 706 P.2d 810 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
“Under the Employment Security Act, it is the responsibility of the division of employment and training, in the first instance, and ultimately the Industrial Commission to determine the claimant’s eligibility for benefits.”
Kuhr v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
“” § 8-74-102(1), C.R.S. 2024. “Claims” under the Act include “valid initial claim(s)” and two types of reopened claims.”
Katzson v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
“The Division issued a decision on March 8, notifying Katzson that it had lost its right to protest the award of unemployment benefits to McLachlan under section 8-74-102, C.R.S. 2024, which provides that an employer has seven days to present any information pertinent to the…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-102(2): 3 cases
Scofield v. Indus. Com'n of State of Colo., 697 P.2d 815 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
“We agree with the Commission that the amendment to § 8-74-102(2), which occurred subsequent to the announcement of Lowery , manifests the General Assembly’s intent to require proof of service on the Commission as a jurisdictional prerequisite to appellate review of final orders…”
Nettles v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
“Though he cites section 8-74-102(2), C.R.S. 2025, and Goldberg v.”
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.