Allison v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of State of Colo., 93SC663
| Decision Date | 15 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93SC663,93SC663 |
| Citation | 884 P.2d 1113 |
| Parties | Richard ALLISON, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE of the STATE OF COLORADO and MAI Mechanical, Inc. and Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Dallas, Holland & O'Toole, P.C., Neil D. O'Toole, Denver, for petitioner.
Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Paul Farley, Deputy Atty. Gen., John D. Baird, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Indus. Claim Appeals Office.
Michael J. Steiner, DeMuro & Vamos, P.C., David R. DeMuro, Denver, for respondents MAI Mechanical, Inc. and Colo. Compensation Ins. Authority.
Jean E. Dubofsky, Boulder, for amicus curiae Workers Compensation Educ. Ass'n.
We granted certiorari to review the order denying certiorari entered in Allison v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, No. 93CE0013 (Colo.App. Sept. 1, 1993). We vacate the court of appeals order denying certiorari and remand to the court of appeals for determination of the issues on the merits.
The court of appeals, in construing section 8-43-307, 3B C.R.S. (1994 Supp.), limited the review of a workers' compensation case decided by the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (ICAO) to certiorari. Administrative review of workers' compensation and unemployment compensation cases is conducted by the ICAO. The only judicial review of awards for workers' compensation and unemployment compensation cases decided by the ICAO is in the court of appeals. The petitioner asserts that section 8-43-307, which limited review to certiorari, is unconstitutional because it denied him access to the courts and the right to an appeal of a workers' compensation award. We granted certiorari to consider the following issues:
Whether section 8-43-307, 3B C.R.S. (1994 Supp.), section 8-74-107, 3B C.R.S. (1986 & 1994 Supp.) and C.A.R. 46.4 and 46.7 unconstitutionally deny workers' compensation parties access to the courts in violation of the United States Constitution amendment XIV and the Colorado Constitution, article 2, sections 6 and 25.
Whether the court of appeals correctly interpreted C.A.R. 46.4 and 46.7 to limit claimant's right to a rehearing in light of C.A.R. 52 which provides that no "Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court shall issue unless a petition for rehearing has been filed in the court of appeals."
We agree that section 8-43-307 denies workers' compensation claimants access to the courts and remand this case to the court of appeals with directions to review Allison's claims on the merits pursuant to C.A.R. 3.1(c), which provides:
(c) Priority of Industrial Claim Appeals Office Cases. All appeals from the Industrial Claim Appeals Office shall have precedence over any civil cause of a different nature pending in said court, and the Court of Appeals shall always be deemed open for the determination thereof, and shall be determined by the Court of Appeals in the manner as provided for other appeals. 1
Richard Allison filed a claim for workers' compensation. 2 The claim was subsequently heard and determined by an ALJ. The decision of the ALJ was reviewed and affirmed by a panel of the ICAO.
Allison filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the court of appeals pursuant to section 8-43-307, which was denied. Section 8-43-307 provides for certiorari review of a workers' compensation claim. Section 8-74-107, 3B C.R.S. (1986 & 1994 Supp.), cited by Allison in his petition for writ of certiorari to this court, provides a procedure for the court of appeals to review unemployment compensation claims. 3 Section 8-74-107 provides that:
(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.
§ 8-74-107. The enactment of section 8-74-107 by the General Assembly provides unemployment compensation claimants with a constitutional procedure for judicial review on the merits. The section permits any interested party to commence "[a]ctions, proceedings, or suits" to obtain review in the court of appeals. The procedure for review by the court of appeals in section 8-74-107 is mandatory rather than discretionary and provides the access to the courts required by article II, section 6 of the Colorado Constitution.
The direct appeal of workers' compensation cases was afforded by section 8-53-119, 3B C.R.S. (1986). 4 Section 8-53-119 was repealed by the General Assembly, effective July 1, 1990. Ch. 62, sec. 77, 1990 Colo.Sess.Laws 576. The General Assembly, by repealing section 8-53-119, limited review of workers' compensation claims to the discretionary certiorari procedure set out in section 8-43-307. 5 By way of contrast, the General Assembly granted unemployment compensation claimants the right of appeal on the merits in section 8-74-107. The General Assembly could not have intended to grant a right of appeal to unemployment compensation claimants while limiting the right of review afforded to workers' compensation claimants.
The certiorari provisions of section 8-43-307, which became effective in 1991, permit review of ICAO decisions in workers' compensation cases by the court of appeals. See ch. 219, sec. 37, § 8-43-307, 1991 Colo.Sess.Laws 1324, 1324-25. Specifically, section 8-43-307 provides:
(1) The final order of the director or the panel shall constitute the final order of the division. Any person in interest, including the Colorado compensation insurance authority, being dissatisfied with any final order of the division, may file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the court of appeals against the industrial claim appeals office as defendant to modify or vacate any such order on the grounds set forth in section 8-43-308. The court of appeals may issue a summary order denying any petition for writ of certiorari filed pursuant to this section. Such summary order shall be based on criteria established by the supreme court, by rule, governing the exercise of discretion by the court of appeals in such cases.
(2) All such actions shall have precedence over any civil cause of a different nature pending in such court, and the court of appeals shall always be deemed open for the trial thereof, and such actions shall be tried and determined by the court of appeals in the manner provided for other civil actions.
(3) All such actions shall be commenced by service of a copy of the petition upon the industrial claim appeals office and filing the same with the court of appeals. The petition shall state the grounds upon which the review is sought and shall also be served upon all other parties. After the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the court of appeals, such action shall be conducted in the manner prescribed by the Colorado appellate rules.
§ 8-43-307 (emphasis added). 6 The procedures for review on certiorari are set forth in C.A.R. 46(a), 7 which provides:
(a) Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals. A petition for review in the Court of Appeals on writ of certiorari as provided in section 8-43-307, C.R.S., is a matter addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the court, and such determination shall constitute judicial review. A petition for writ of certiorari will be granted only if one or more of the following grounds is present:
(1) That the findings of fact may not be sufficient;
(2) That conflicts in the evidence may not be resolved in the record;
(3) That the findings of fact may not be supported by the evidence;
(4) That the findings of fact may not support the order;
(5) That the order may not be supported by applicable law;
(6) That the order decided a question of substance not previously determined.
Certiorari does not constitute judicial review on the merits. The existence of any of the six grounds for certiorari provides a basis for judicial review of the record on certiorari. However, the decision to grant or deny certiorari is wholly discretionary. Sutterfield v. District Court, 165 Colo. 225, 228, 438 P.2d 236, 239 (1968). The denial of certiorari does not determine the merits of the case, but reflects only that the case is not properly postured for review. Menefee v. City & County of Denver, 190 Colo. 163, 165, 544 P.2d 382, 383 (1976).
Pursuant to section 8-43-307, the court of appeals denied certiorari in this case. Allison filed a petition for rehearing but the court of appeals denied the petition on the ground that C.A.R. 46 does not provide for a rehearing of a denial of certiorari by the court of appeals. 8 In denying certiorari, the court of appeals is not required to set forth reasons or a basis for denying review. Neither the granting nor the denial of certiorari by the court of appeals addresses or resolves the merits of the issues raised on appeal. No record exists as to why certiorari was denied or granted. When certiorari is granted the issues for review are disclosed for the first time.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the procedures for review set forth in sections 8-43-307 and 8-74-107 are unconstitutional and whether the rehearing provisions in the Colorado Appellate Rules are internally conflicting. We reverse, remand, and hold that Allison's right to access to the courts is violated by the limitation of appellate review to certiorari in section 8-43-307 and C.A.R. 46.
Allison asserts that section 8-43-307 violates his constitutional right to access to the state courts. 9 We agree. An analysis of the current process for workers' compensation review and the role...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whiteside v. Smith
...Workers' Compensation Act. The General Assembly created the substantive right to workers' compensation. See Allison v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 884 P.2d 1113, 1119 (Colo.1994). The substantive right to workers' compensation replaced an injured worker's common law right to sue. Id. Color......
-
Giampapa v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...case today. The rule is clear that a denial of certiorari does not constitute judicial review on the merits. Allison v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 884 P.2d 1113, 1118 (Colo.1994); see also Mercer, 377 U.S. at 153, 84 S.Ct. 1157 (stating that a high court can review the judgment of an inte......
-
People v. Figueroa-Lemus
...But it does require a review on the merits—a review that is not assured by the certiorari review process. Allison v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 884 P.2d 1113, 1120 (Colo. 1994).¶ 13 Third, if appellate review of the denial of a Crim. P. 32(d) motion was contingent upon the revocation of ......
-
Marriage of Hartley, In re
...that the Colorado Constitution has an express right of access to courts). However, as we recently held in Allison v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 884 P.2d 1113 (Colo.1994), the constitutional right to access does not create a substantive right; it provides a procedural right to a judici......
-
Recent Workers' Compensation Decisions: an Update
...24 Colo.Law.. 1894 (Aug. 1995) (App. No. 95CA0131, annc'd 6/15/95). 16. Id. 17. See, e.g., Allison v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 884 P.2d 1113 (Colo. 1994). 18. 24 Colo.Law.. 2042 (Aug. 1995) (S.Ct. No. 94SC323, annc'd 6/26/95). 19. PDM Molding, Inc. v. Stanberg, 885 P.2d 280 (Colo.Ap......
-
Update on Colorado Appellate Decisions in Workers' Compensation Law
...13. Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority v. Nofio, 8886 P.2d 714, 719 (Colo. 1994); Allison v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 884 P.2d 1113, 1119 (Colo. 1994); Donn Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 865 P.2d 873, 875 (Colo. 1993). 14. Smith, supra, note 1 at 217. 15. Id. 16. Matthews,......
-
Recent Colorado Appellate Decisions in Workers' Compensation Cases
...1994). 33. Koch, supra, note 30 at 135. 34. Id. 35. Id. 36. 25 Colo.Law.. 151 (Jan. 1996) (App.No. 95CA232, annc'd 11/24/95). 37. 884 P.2d 1113 (Colo. 1994). 38. Wecker, supra, note 36 at 152. 39. Id., quoting Pettyjohn v. Sullivan, 776 F.Supp. 1482, 1485 (D.Colo. 1991). 40. Id., citing Rat......