Colorado § 8-43-201 - Disputes arising under "Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado".

§ 8-43-201. Disputes arising under "Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado".

(1) The director and administrative law judges employed by the office of administrative courts in the department of personnel shall have original jurisdiction to hear and decide all matters arising under articles 40 to 47 of this title; except that the following principles shall apply: A claimant in a workers' compensation claim shall have the burden of proving entitlement to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence; the facts in a workers' compensation case shall not be interpreted liberally in favor of either the rights of the injured worker or the rights of the employer; a workers' compensation case shall be decided on its merits; and a party seeking to modify an issue determined by a general or final admission, a summary order, or a full order shall bear the burden of proof for any such modification.

(2) The amendments made to subsection (1) of this section by Senate Bill 09-168, enacted in 2009, are declared to be procedural and were intended to and shall apply to all workers' compensation claims, regardless of the date the claim was filed.

(3) It is appropriate for the director or an administrative law judge to consider the medical treatment guidelines adopted under section 8-42-101 (3) in determining whether certain medical treatment is reasonable, necessary, and related to an industrial injury or occupational disease. The director or administrative law judge is not required to utilize the medical treatment guidelines as the sole basis for such determinations.

Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 501, § 1, effective July 1. L. 91: Entire section amended, p. 1315, § 22, effective July 1. L. 95: Entire section amended, p. 635, § 13, effective July 1. L. 2005: Entire section amended, p. 854, § 11, effective June 1. L. 2009: Entire section amended, (SB 09-168), ch. 184, p. 807, § 3, effective August 5. L. 2010: Entire section amended, (SB 10-163), ch. 66, p. 232, § 3, effective March 31. L. 2014: (3) added, (SB 14-191), ch. 316, p. 1371, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 8-53-101 as it existed prior to 1990.

Cross references: For judicial review of findings by the director, see § 8-1-130.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article on "Colorado Practice in Workmen's Compensation", see 31 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 500 (1959).

Annotator's note. (1) Since § 8-43-201 is similar to § 8-53-101 as it existed prior to the 1990 repeal and reenactment of the "Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado", articles 40 to 47 of this title, a relevant case construing that provision has been included in the annotations to this section.

(2) Cases included in the annotations to this section which refer to the industrial commission were decided prior to the 1969 amendment which required the submission of disputes concerning workmen's compensation to the division of labor instead of the industrial commission.

Constitutionality. The general assembly's grant of limited authority in this section to administrative law judges and the industrial claim appeals office over the area of workers' compensation matters does not create a substantial threat to the separation of powers doctrine under article III of the Colorado Constitution, nor does it violate the requirement that district courts have original jurisdiction in civil cases as mandated in article VI, § 9(1), of the Colorado Constitution. Dee Enters. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 89 P.3d 430 (Colo. App. 2003); Aviado v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 228 P.3d 177 (Colo. App. 2009); Sanchez v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 2017 COA 71, 411 P.3d 245.

The establishment of original jurisdiction with administrative law judges by this section does not violate the constitutional conferment of jurisdiction on district courts, as the parties in workers' compensation proceedings have expressly surrendered common law rights, remedies, and proceedings in exchange for the benefits of the act. MGM Supply Co. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 62 P.3d 1001 (Colo. App. 2002); Aviado v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 228 P.3d 177 (Colo. App. 2009).

Industrial commission shall dispose of issues regarding compensation claims. One of the fundamental aims in adopting the workmen's compensation act was that of substituting for any and all previously existing remedies the special procedure supplied by the act. Anything that tends to complicate the issues arising out of claims for compensation or to take the disposition thereof away from the commission must be firmly discouraged. Roper v. Indus. Comm'n, 93 Colo. 250, 25 P.2d 725 (1933).

For the industrial commission is the only body or agency authorized to find the facts determinative of whether both the employer and employee are subject to the act. Miller v. Denver Post, Inc. 137 Colo. 61, 322 P.2d 661 (1958).

Hence, a hearing officer has authority to determine whether the conditions of coverage under a policy issued by the fund are met. Once the existence of a valid insurance contract has been established, the burden is upon the insurer to establish that the policy has lapsed. The allocation of the burden of proof is a substantial right of the parties, and it is reversible error if the burden is allocated improperly. Butkovich v. Indus. Comm'n, 690 P.2d 257 (Colo. App. 1984).

Since a bad faith tort claim falls outside of those "matters arising under" the act, this provision cannot place jurisdiction over the claim within the division of labor. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Savio, 706 P.2d 1258 (Colo. 1985).

Despite the division's original jurisdiction to determine workers' compensation issues, a trial court with jurisdiction over a personal injury tort claim also has jurisdiction to apportion settlement proceeds between loss of consortium, economic losses, and non-economic losses. Colo. Comp. Ins. Auth. v. Jorgensen, 992 P.2d 1156 (Colo. 2000).

The failure of the state compensation insurance fund to specify the time of effective cancellation of coverage results in the policy coverage being in effect until midnight of the date of cancellation. State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Bldg. Sys., 713 P.2d 940 (Colo. App. 1985).

Under this section, the director has the authority to enter an order regarding a claimant's benefits even though the claimant's case is in the process of being determined by an administrative law judge. Cornerstone Partners v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 830 P.2d 1148 (Colo. App. 1992).

The director's authority to act under this section is not limited by § 8-43-208. Cornerstone Partners v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 830 P.2d 1148 (Colo. App. 1992).

A party seeking to modify an issue determined by a general or final admission, a summary order, or a full order has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a modification should be made. City of Brighton v. Rodriguez, 2014 CO 7, 318 P.3d 496.

Applied in Cornerstone v. Indus. Claim App. Office, 830 P.2d 1148 (Colo. App. 1992).