(1) No action, proceeding, or suit to set aside an industrial claim appeals panel's decision or to enjoin the enforcement thereof shall be brought unless the petitioning party has first complied with the review provisions of sections 8-74-104 and 8-74- 106.
(2) Actions, proceedings, or suits to set aside, vacate, or amend any final decision of the industrial claim appeals panel or to enjoin the enforcement thereof may be commenced in the court of appeals by any interested party, including the division. Such actions, proceedings, or suits shall be commenced by filing a notice of appeal in the court of appeals within twenty-one days of the mailing of the industrial claim appeals panel's decision, together with a certificate of service showing service of a copy of said notice of appeal on the division, the industrial claim appeals office, and all other parties who appeared in the administrative proceedings. The industrial claim appeals office, within twenty-one days after the service of the notice, shall make return to said court of all documents and papers on file in the matter, of all testimony taken therein, and of certified copies of all findings, orders, and awards, which return shall be deemed its answer to said petition. Such return of the industrial claim appeals office shall constitute the judgment roll in any such action, proceeding, or suit, and it shall not be necessary to settle a bill of exceptions in order to make such return part of the record of such court in such action, proceeding, or suit.
(3) The industrial claim appeals panel may certify to the court of appeals questions of law involved in any of its decisions.
(4) In judicial proceedings under this article, administrative findings as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive.
(5) Actions, proceedings, and suits to review any final decision of the industrial claim appeals panel or questions certified to the court of appeals by such panel shall be heard in an expedited manner and shall be given precedence over all other civil cases, except cases arising under the "Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado", articles 40 to 47 of this title.
(6) The industrial claim appeals panel's decision may be set aside only upon the following grounds:
(a) That the industrial claim appeals panel acted without or in excess of its powers;
(b) That the decision was procured by fraud;
(c) That the findings of fact do not support the decision;
(d) That the decision is erroneous as a matter of law.
Source: L. 76: Entire article R&RE, p. 357, § 1, effective October 1. L. 84: (2) amended, p. 318, § 8, effective July 1. L. 86: (1) to (5), IP(6), and (6)(a) amended, p. 492, § 96, effective July 1. L. 90: (5) amended, p. 557, § 11, effective July 1. L. 92: (2) amended, p. 1812, § 3, effective March 19. L. 2013: (2) amended, (HB 13-1126), ch. 58, p. 191, § 1, effective July 1.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former §§ 8-74-108 and 8-74-109 as they existed prior to 1976.
Notes of Decisions
Mesa Cnty. Pub. Library Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2017 CO 78 (Colo. 2017).
· cites it 12× “1987); see also § 8-74-107(4), C.R.S. (2016). However, a reviewing court reviews de novo the officer’s or panel’s ultimate legal conclusion as to whether a claimant was at fault for her separation from employment.”
SZL, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 254 P.3d 1180 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “Finally, the hearing officer found that, in his last job before working for SZL, claimant worked as an employee for another company performing truck driving services for two years.”
Beinor v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 262 P.3d 970 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 11× “1995) (appellate court has no authority under section 8-74-107, C.R.S.2010, to consider supplemental evidence); Goodwill Indus.”
Lutheran Hosp. & Homes Soc'y v. Indus. Comm'n, 710 P.2d 496 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 10× “See § 8-74-107(2), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.). In response, the employer states that it did not receive a copy of the order until April 15.”
Debalco Enter., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 32 P.3d 621 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “See § 8-74-107(6), C.R.S.2000. IL. Debalco next contends that, even though claimant was separated from employment with it because of the sale of the business in February 2000, he was nevertheless not unemployed.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-107(1) — 9 cases
Beinor v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 262 P.3d 970 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“1995) (appellate court has no authority under section 8-74-107, C.R.S.2010, to consider supplemental evidence); Goodwill Indus.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-107(2) — 27 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-107(4) — 42 cases
Mesa Cnty. Pub. Library Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2017 CO 78 (Colo. 2017).
“1987); see also § 8-74-107(4), C.R.S. (2016). However, a reviewing court reviews de novo the officer’s or panel’s ultimate legal conclusion as to whether a claimant was at fault for her separation from employment.”
SZL, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 254 P.3d 1180 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“Finally, the hearing officer found that, in his last job before working for SZL, claimant worked as an employee for another company performing truck driving services for two years.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-107(5) — 3 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-107(6) — 48 cases
Mesa Cnty. Pub. Library Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2017 CO 78 (Colo. 2017).
“1987); see also § 8-74-107(4), C.R.S. (2016). However, a reviewing court reviews de novo the officer’s or panel’s ultimate legal conclusion as to whether a claimant was at fault for her separation from employment.”
SZL, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 254 P.3d 1180 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“Finally, the hearing officer found that, in his last job before working for SZL, claimant worked as an employee for another company performing truck driving services for two years.”
Debalco Enter., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 32 P.3d 621 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
“See § 8-74-107(6), C.R.S.2000. IL. Debalco next contends that, even though claimant was separated from employment with it because of the sale of the business in February 2000, he was nevertheless not unemployed.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-107(6)(a) — 6 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-107(6)(b) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-107(6)(c) — 30 cases
Mesa Cnty. Pub. Library Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2017 CO 78 (Colo. 2017).
“1987); see also § 8-74-107(4), C.R.S. (2016). However, a reviewing court reviews de novo the officer’s or panel’s ultimate legal conclusion as to whether a claimant was at fault for her separation from employment.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-107(6)(d) — 11 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-107(86) — 1 case
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.