CF & I Steel Corp. v. Industrial Com'n of the State of Colo., 85CA1764
| Decision Date | 06 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85CA1764,85CA1764 |
| Citation | 731 P.2d 144 |
| Parties | CF & I STEEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF the STATE OF COLORADO; Robert J. Husson, Director of the Division of Labor; and Henry H. Horner, Respondents. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Welborn, Dufford, Brown & Tooley, John M. Spillane, Douglas P. Ruegsegger, Denver, for petitioner.
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Gregory K. Chambers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents Industrial Commission and Robert J. Husson.
No Appearance for respondent Henry H. Horner.
CF & I Steel Corporation (CF & I) seeks review of an order of the Industrial Commission (Commission) which determined that the claimant, Henry Horner, was permanently and totally disabled, but which failed to require the Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF) to assume responsibility for any benefits attributable to such disability. Inasmuch as there exists no Commission order disposing of the issue raised by CF & I, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
On April 18, 1984, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the Division of Labor upon the extent of the claimant's temporary and permanent disability. Between the date of the hearing and the date the hearing officer entered his order, the Commission, in attempting to comply with the supreme court's decision in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Baca, 682 P.2d 11 (Colo.1984), adopted rules of procedure to be followed in determining SIF claims.
The parties here disagree as to the extent to which the new procedural rules were intended to apply to proceedings then in progress concerning the instant claim and whether it was possible for CF & I to comply with such rules. We express no views on these subjects because of our determination concerning jurisdiction.
On November 7, 1984, the hearing officer entered an order finding the claimant to be permanently and totally disabled. Subsequently, CF & I filed a timely petition to review this order, claiming, inter alia, that it was improper not to "offset liability" to the SIF. At the same time, it filed a separate written request for such an offset on a form provided by the Commission for such purpose.
The hearing officer referred CF & I's petition for review to the Commission. However, the record fails to disclose that the hearing officer took any action upon CF & I's simultaneous written request. The Commission later entered a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leewaye v. Ind. Claim Appeals Office of Co.
...the Panel addressed this issue. Because this issue is not properly before us, we decline to address it. See CF & I Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 731 P.2d 144, 146 (Colo.App.1986); § 8-43-307, C.R.S. The order is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with thi......
-
In the Matter of Claim of Bollig v. Petco, W. C. No. 4-625-226 (CO 10/19/2005)
...782 P.2d 843 (Colo. App. 1989) (order may be partially final and reviewable and partially interlocutory); CF & I Steel Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 731 P.2d 144 (Colo. App. 1986). Section 8-42-101(1)(a), C.R.S. 2005, provides that respondents are liable for all emergency and authorized m......
-
Flint Energy Ser. v. Indus. Claim App. off.
..."invested with jurisdiction" over a workers' compensation matter, the Panel must have issued a "final order." CF & I Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 731 P.2d 144, 146 (Colo.App.1986). To be final, an order must grant or benefits or penalties. Ortiz v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1110......
-
Oxford Chemicals, Inc. v. Richardson, 88CA1709
...final order on this issue is lacking, and the Panel's decision is not subject to review by this court. See CF & I Steel Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 731 P.2d 144 (Colo.App.1986); § 8-53-119(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. We have considered and find no merit in the employer's other contention......