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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-106 (2026)

Appeals - time limits - procedures

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

(1) The following procedures and limitations shall apply to all appeals taken pursuant to this article:

(a) Any party may petition for review of a deputy's decision by filing a petition therefor with the division within twenty calendar days after the date of notification of such decision. Notification of the decision shall be by personal delivery of the decision to an interested party or by mailing a copy of the decision to the last-known address shown in the division records of an interested party and to the interested party's attorney or representative of record, if any, or by electronic means. The date of notification shall be the date of personal delivery, the date of transmission as recorded by the division, if notification is made by electronic means, or the date of mailing of a decision.

(b) Unless, within twenty calendar days after the date of notification of a deputy's decision, an interested party petitions for review of such decision, the decision shall be final. Petitions for review may be accepted out of time only for good cause shown and in accordance with rules adopted by the director of the division.

(c) The division shall give written notice to all interested parties when a petition for review is filed. Such notice shall be pursuant to regulations adopted by the director of the division.

(d) Pursuant to section 8-72-107, each interested party shall be given such reasonable access to division records concerning the claim as is necessary for proper presentation of his position concerning the claim.

(e) Any interested party to an appeal from a deputy's decision shall be entitled to a hearing before a hearing officer. All interested parties shall have the right to be present or to be represented by an attorney or other representative at the hearing, to present such testimony and evidence as may be pertinent to the claim, and to cross-examine witnesses. The division, pursuant to regulations adopted by the director of the division, shall notify all interested parties of the hearing. Such notification shall be made not less than ten calendar days prior to the hearing.

(f) (I) The manner in which disputed claims shall be presented, the reports required from interested parties, and the conduct of hearings shall be in accordance with the provisions of this article and the regulations prescribed by the director of the division, whether or not such regulations conform to common law or statutory or regulatory rules of evidence or other technical rules of procedure.

(II) Evidence and requirements of proof shall conform, to the extent practicable, with those in civil nonjury cases in the district courts of this state. However, when necessary to do so in order to ascertain facts affecting the substantial rights of the parties to the proceeding, the person conducting the hearing may receive and consider evidence not admissible under such rules, if such evidence possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent men in the conduct of their affairs. Objections to evidentiary offers may be made and shall be noted in the record. The person conducting a hearing shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law. He may exclude incompetent and unduly repetitious evidence. Documentary evidence may be received in the form of a copy or excerpt if the original is not readily available; but, upon request, the party shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original. The division may utilize its experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge in the evaluation of the evidence presented. The provisions of the "State Administrative Procedure Act", article 4 of title 24, C.R.S., and particularly sections 24-4-105 and 24-4-106, C.R.S., shall not apply to hearings and court review under this article. However, the rule-making provisions of section 24-4-103, C.R.S., shall apply to this article.

(III) When the same or substantially similar evidence is relevant and material to the matters at issue in claims by more than one individual or in claims by a single individual with respect to two or more weeks of unemployment, the same time and place for considering each such claim may be fixed, hearings thereon may be jointly conducted, a single record of the proceedings may be made, and evidence introduced with respect to one proceeding may be considered as introduced in the others, if, in the judgment of the tribunal having jurisdiction over the proceeding, such consolidation would not be prejudicial to any interested party.

(IV) No person shall participate on behalf of the division in any case in which he has a direct or indirect interest.

(V) A full and complete record shall be kept of all proceedings in connection with a disputed claim. All testimony at any hearing upon a disputed claim shall be recorded but need not be transcribed unless the disputed claim is presented for further review. If necessary, the industrial claim appeals panel may listen to the recorded testimony of a hearing on a disputed claim prior to rendering a decision. If review is sought pursuant to section 8-74-107, the division shall transcribe the testimony pursuant to such regulations as the director of the division may prescribe.

(g) Repealed.

Source: L. 76: Entire article R&RE, p. 356, § 1, effective October 1. L. 79: (1)(e) amended and (1)(g) repealed, pp. 352, 356, §§ 17, 25, effective September 30. L. 81: (1)(a) and

(1)(b) amended, p. 485, § 10, effective July 1. L. 86: (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(e), (1)(f)(I), (1)(f)(II), (1)(f)(IV), and (1)(f)(V) amended, p. 490, § 95, effective July 1. L. 96: (1)(a) and

(1)(b) amended, p. 383, § 9, effective April 17. L. 2002: (1)(a) amended, p. 337, § 4, effective April 19. L. 2007: (1)(a) and (1)(b) amended, p. 804, § 6, effective August 3.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former §§ 8-74-102, 8-74-104, 8-74-106, and 8- 74-107 as they existed prior to 1976.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. of the Supreme Court of Colorado v. Employers Unity, Inc., 716 P.2d 460 (Colo. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. of the Supreme Court of Colorado v. Employers Unity, Inc., 716 P.2d 460 (Colo. 1986). · cites it 56× “(1) The following procedures and limitations shall apply to all appeals taken pursuant to this article: . . . . (e) Any interested party to an appeal from a deputy's decision shall be entitled to a hearing before a hearing officer.”
Federico v. Brannan Sand & Gravel Co., 788 P.2d 1268 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 5× “1, § 8-74-106(1)(f)(II), 1976 Colo.Sess. Laws 354, 356-57.”
Mohawk Data Sciences Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n of Colorado, 671 P.2d 1335 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 5× “See § 8-74-106(l)(b), C.R.S. 1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.”
Andrews v. Dir., Div. of Emp., 585 P.2d 933 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 6× “The relevant statute setting forth time limits for an appeal to the Commission is § 8-74-106(1), C.R.S.1973 (1976 Cum.Supp.”
Indus. Claims Appeals Off. v. Flower Stop Mktg. Corp., 782 P.2d 13 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 2× “In this case, while hearings involving unemployment compensation benefits are governed by the Employment Security Act, section 8-74-106(l)(f)(II), 3B C.R.S. (1986), the applicable language in that act is identical to the APA provision, and thus Kirke is controlling.”
In Re Adamic, 291 B.R. 175 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2003). · cites it 2× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 8-74-106 (governing time limits and procedures for appeal).”
Sanchez v. Straight, 580 P.2d 827 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “" See § 8-74-106(1)(b), C.R.S.1973 (1976 Supp.).”
Santa Fe Energy Co. v. Baca, 673 P.2d 374 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “Alternatively, the employer argues that the hearsay was admissible because claimant corroborated it and because it possessed “probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent men” within the meaning of § 8-74-106(f)(II), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.”
Yanish v. Indus. Comm'n, 558 P.2d 1007 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 5× “Section 8-74-106(1), C.R.S.1973, authorizes the Commission to prescribe regulations for the conduct of hearings and appeals in unemployment compensation cases.”
Lutheran Hosp. & Homes Soc'y v. Indus. Comm'n, 710 P.2d 496 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “This provision requires a party dissatisfied with the decision of a deputy, hearing officer, or the initial decision of the Commission to file a petition to review within fifteen days after “notification of such decision.”
Salida Sch. Dist. R-32-J v. Morrison, 732 P.2d 1160 (Colo. 1987). “§ 8-74-106, 3B C.R.S. (1986). Discovery in an unemployment compensation hearing may be restricted.”
Clark v. Colorado State Univ., 762 P.2d 698 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “See § 8-74-106(l)(f)(II), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol.”
Show all 42 citing cases →
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-106(1): 3 cases
Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. of the Supreme Court of Colorado v. Employers Unity, Inc., 716 P.2d 460 (Colo. 1986). “(1) The following procedures and limitations shall apply to all appeals taken pursuant to this article: . . . . (e) Any interested party to an appeal from a deputy's decision shall be entitled to a hearing before a hearing officer.”
Yanish v. Indus. Comm'n, 558 P.2d 1007 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976). “Section 8-74-106(1), C.R.S.1973, authorizes the Commission to prescribe regulations for the conduct of hearings and appeals in unemployment compensation cases.”
Andrews v. Dir., Div. of Emp., 585 P.2d 933 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). “The relevant statute setting forth time limits for an appeal to the Commission is § 8-74-106(1), C.R.S.1973 (1976 Cum.Supp.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-106(1)(a): 11 cases
Andrews v. Dir., Div. of Emp., 585 P.2d 933 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). “The relevant statute setting forth time limits for an appeal to the Commission is § 8-74-106(1), C.R.S.1973 (1976 Cum.Supp.”
Mckenna v. Indus. Com'n, 596 P.2d 405 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).
Nicholson v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Dos Almas LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2018 COA 145 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
Maines v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-106(1)(b): 10 cases
Sanchez v. Straight, 580 P.2d 827 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). “" See § 8-74-106(1)(b), C.R.S.1973 (1976 Supp.).”
Speier v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 181 P.3d 1173 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
Univ. of Colorado v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 74 P.3d 510 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
Dos Almas LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2018 COA 145 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
Henningfield v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-106(1)(e): 3 cases
Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. of the Supreme Court of Colorado v. Employers Unity, Inc., 716 P.2d 460 (Colo. 1986). “(1) The following procedures and limitations shall apply to all appeals taken pursuant to this article: . . . . (e) Any interested party to an appeal from a deputy's decision shall be entitled to a hearing before a hearing officer.”
Larsen-Oldaker v. Indus. Comm'n, 735 P.2d 209 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).
Albertsons, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 735 P.2d 220 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-106(1)(f)(II): 5 cases
Federico v. Brannan Sand & Gravel Co., 788 P.2d 1268 (Colo. 1990). “1, § 8-74-106(1)(f)(II), 1976 Colo.Sess. Laws 354, 356-57.”
Flower Stop Mktg. Corp. v. Kilgore, 762 P.2d 747 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
Perez v. Indus. Comm'n, 711 P.2d 1283 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
Phillip C. Tilley v. The Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of the State of Colorado & U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc., . II, 924 P.2d 1173 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
Phillip C. Tilley v. The Indus. Claim Appeals Off. of the State of Colorado & U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc., . II, 924 P.2d 1173 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-106(f)(II): 1 case
Santa Fe Energy Co. v. Baca, 673 P.2d 374 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “Alternatively, the employer argues that the hearsay was admissible because claimant corroborated it and because it possessed “probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent men” within the meaning of § 8-74-106(f)(II), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-106(l)(a): 2 cases
Lutheran Hosp. & Homes Soc'y v. Indus. Comm'n, 710 P.2d 496 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). “This provision requires a party dissatisfied with the decision of a deputy, hearing officer, or the initial decision of the Commission to file a petition to review within fifteen days after “notification of such decision.”
FlaHavhan v. Hewlett Packard Co., 675 P.2d 19 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-106(l)(b): 4 cases
Mohawk Data Sciences Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n of Colorado, 671 P.2d 1335 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “See § 8-74-106(l)(b), C.R.S. 1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.”
Buschmann v. Gallegos Masonry, Inc., 805 P.2d 1193 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).
Kriegel v. Indus. Comm'n, 702 P.2d 290 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
Landers v. Indus. Comm'n, 721 P.2d 1227 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-106(l)(e): 2 cases
Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. of the Supreme Court of Colorado v. Employers Unity, Inc., 716 P.2d 460 (Colo. 1986). “(1) The following procedures and limitations shall apply to all appeals taken pursuant to this article: . . . . (e) Any interested party to an appeal from a deputy's decision shall be entitled to a hearing before a hearing officer.”
Voisinet v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 757 P.2d 171 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-106(l)(f)(II): 5 cases
Indus. Claims Appeals Off. v. Flower Stop Mktg. Corp., 782 P.2d 13 (Colo. 1989). “In this case, while hearings involving unemployment compensation benefits are governed by the Employment Security Act, section 8-74-106(l)(f)(II), 3B C.R.S. (1986), the applicable language in that act is identical to the APA provision, and thus Kirke is controlling.”
Clark v. Colorado State Univ., 762 P.2d 698 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). “See § 8-74-106(l)(f)(II), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol.”
QFD Accessories, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 873 P.2d 32 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
Tilley v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 924 P.2d 1173 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
Anders v. Indus. Comm'n of State of Colorado, 649 P.2d 732 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
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.