Colorado § 8-1-118 - Rules of evidence - procedure.

§ 8-1-118. Rules of evidence - procedure.

The director, or persons designated by him, shall not be bound by the usual common law or statutory rules of evidence or by any technical or formal rules of procedure, other than as provided in this article or by the rules of the division, but he may make such investigations in such manner as in his judgment are best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties and to carry out justly the spirit of this article.

Source: L. 15: p. 574, § 22. C.L. § 4346. CSA: C. 97, § 24. CRS 53: § 80-1-22. C.R.S. 1963: § 80-1-22. L. 69: p. 581, § 36. L. 72: p. 604, § 105. L. 86: Entire section amended, p. 466, § 11, effective July 1.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For note, "Right of Cross-Examination Before Administrative Agencies in Colorado", see 29 Dicta 446 (1952). For note, "The Right to Cross-Examine Adverse Witnesses as a Part of Due Process in Hearings Before Colorado Agencies", see 31 Dicta 383 (1954). For note, "The Admissibility of Hearsay in Hearings Before Workmen's Compensation Commissions", see 31 Dicta 423 (1954).

Annotator's note. Cases included in the annotations to this section which refer to the industrial commission were decided prior to the 1969 amendment to this section vesting in the director of the division of labor powers and duties previously exercised by the industrial commission.

This section cannot be so construed as to wipe out basic and fundamental rules governing the competency of evidence required to establish a fact in all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and which are essential ingredients of due process of law. A right created by statute cannot be denied where the sole support for that denial is evidence which under the law of the land has been held incompetent by the courts. Neither can a liability created by law attach where the only support therefor is incompetent evidence, to the introduction of which proper objection is made. Williams v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 136 Colo. 458, 319 P.2d 1078 (1957).

For this section means that, while the industrial commission's inquiry is not limited by the common law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure and that it may, in its discretion, accept any evidence that is offered, in the end there must be a residuum of legal evidence to support the claim before an award can be made. Williams v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 136 Colo. 458, 319 P.2d 1078 (1957).

However, it is not required that the residuum of legal evidence should independently of hearsay evidence establish an accident, as the sufficiency of the residuum of legal evidence cannot be measured by the mechanical formula. Williams v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 136 Colo. 458, 319 P.2d 1078 (1957).

Rather, there must be evidence setting forth facts of a probative character outside of hearsay statements to prove the award and show it is fair and just. Williams v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 136 Colo. 458, 319 P.2d 1078 (1957).

And reviewing courts may not interfere with the findings of the commission if there is competent probative evidence in support thereof. It is only when the showing made is without probative force and effect, or is of such a character as not to constitute any legitimate evidence, that the award will be disturbed. Williams v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 136 Colo. 458, 319 P.2d 1078 (1957).

Industrial commission is not bound to follow rigid rules of evidence in justly administering the workmen's compensation act. San Isabel Elec. Ass'n v. Bramer, 182 Colo. 15, 510 P.2d 438 (1973).

Admission of hearsay evidence by claimant was proper where testimony was merely cumulative and augmented competent evidence so as not to vitiate findings. San Isabel Elec. Ass'n v. Bramer, 182 Colo. 15, 510 P.2d 438 (1973).

Introduction of evidence and examination of witnesses by employer's representative. Hearings are sufficiently informal so as to permit the employer's representative to question witnesses and introduce evidence when invited to do so by a hearing officer. Ross v. Indus. Comm'n, 39 Colo. App. 204, 566 P.2d 367 (1977).

This section does not prescribe procedures for review of decisions made by hearing officers or purport to alter what constitutes final agency action. Colo. Workers for Innovative v. Gherardini, 2023 COA 80, 540 P.3d 950.