(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, if a decision grants benefits to a claimant, such benefits shall be promptly paid in accordance with and upon issuance of the decision. If further benefits are granted by a subsequent decision, all accrued and unpaid benefits shall be promptly paid. If a subsequent decision denies or reduces benefits, subsequent benefits shall be denied or reduced pursuant to and upon issuance of the decision. If the final decision denies benefits, no employer's rating account shall be charged with benefits paid.
(2) If by reason of fraud, mistake, or clerical error a claimant receives moneys in excess of benefits to which he is entitled or if a claimant receives benefits to which he is subsequently determined to be not entitled as a result of a final decision in the appeals process, the division shall recoup such moneys in accordance with section 8-79-102 and such regulations as may be prescribed by the director of the division. Source: L. 76: Entire article R&RE, p. 358, § 1, effective October 1. L. 83: (2) amended, p. 430, § 5, effective June 3. L. 86: (2) amended, p. 493, § 98, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
v. Vidauri, 2019 COA 140 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
v. Vidauri, 2019 COA 140 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “See § 8-74-109(2), C.R.S. 2018 (unemployment insurance; providing that “[i]f by reason of fraud .”
Rathburn v. Indus. Comm'n, 566 P.2d 372 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977).
“She argues that by virtue of §§ 8-74-109 and 24-4-106(7), C.R.S.1973, which require support by substantial evidence for administrative findings to be conclusive on review, the mere existence of some evidence is insufficient.”
Patterson v. Indus. Comm'n, 567 P.2d 385 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 3× “I The company maintains that, inasmuch as claimant's notice of appeal was not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.”
Paul v. Indus. Comm'n, 632 P.2d 638 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “Nothing in the language of the federal statute nor its stated purposes suggests that Congress intended to provide a permanent windfall to individuals who receive initial benefits to which, it is later determined, they are not entitled.”
Allen v. Indus. Comm'n, 540 P.2d 358 (Colo. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 3× “Section 8-74-109, C.R.S.1973. However, where there is no substantial supportive evidence, as in this case, the Commission's determination must be set aside.”
Claim of Lowery v. Indus. Comm'n, 666 P.2d 562 (Colo. 1983).
· cites it 5× “Prior to 1976, section 8-74-109, C.R.S. 1973, required that judicial review of an unemployment compensation decision be commenced within twenty days after the final decision of the Commission and “in the *566 same manner as reviews are now provided by law in workmen’s…”
Schenk v. Indus. Comm'n, 579 P.2d 1171 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 3× “However, the statute, as presently written does not delineate the act required to "commence" a review action in this court; language to this end was deleted in a 1976 amendment.”
Stern v. Indus. Comm'n, 653 P.2d 742 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 3× “” In the 1976 revision, sections 8-74H08 and 109 were repealed and the requirements for commencement of a court of appeals’ review are simply stated in the new section 8-74-107(2), C.”
Lowery v. Indus. Com'n of State of Colo., 666 P.2d 562 (Colo. 1983).
· cites it 5× “Prior to 1976, section 8-74-109, C.R.S. 1973, required that judicial review of an unemployment compensation decision be commenced within twenty days after the final decision of the Commission and "in the *566 same manner as reviews are now provided by law in workmen's…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-109(1): 1 case
Paul v. Indus. Comm'n, 632 P.2d 638 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).
“Nothing in the language of the federal statute nor its stated purposes suggests that Congress intended to provide a permanent windfall to individuals who receive initial benefits to which, it is later determined, they are not entitled.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-109(2): 7 cases
v. Vidauri, 2019 COA 140 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
“See § 8-74-109(2), C.R.S. 2018 (unemployment insurance; providing that “[i]f by reason of fraud .”
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.