Kieckhafer v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of State

Decision Date19 July 2012
Docket NumberNo. 11CA1801.,11CA1801.
Citation2012 COA 124,284 P.3d 202
PartiesKathleen KIECKHAFER, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE of the State of Colorado; Department of Human Services–Southern District; and Pinnacol Assurance, Respondents.
CourtColorado Court of Appeals
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
6 cases
  • Pinnacol Assurance v. Hoff
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • June 27, 2016
    ...review its conclusions of law de novo. See City of Brighton v. Rodriguez , 2014 CO 7, ¶¶ 11–12, 318 P.3d 496, 501 ; Kieckhafer v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 2012 COA 124, ¶¶ 8, 12, 284 P.3d 202, 205–06.¶25 So, the presumptive standard of review is de novo for the questions of law central......
  • Packard v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • September 12, 2019
    ...is defined broadly as ‘the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts.’ " Kieckhafer v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 2012 COA 124, ¶ 15, 284 P.3d 202 (quoting Dinosaur Park Invs., L.L.C. v. Tello , 192 P.3d 513, 516 (Colo. App. 2008) ). Under the expr......
  • E. Cherry Creek Valley Water v. Greeley Irrigation Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 11, 2015
    ...parties. ¶ 15 A “claim” is the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the courts. Kieckhafer v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 2012 COA 124, ¶ 15, 284 P.3d 202, 207. The ultimate determination of application of Rule 54(b) certification depends on whether the un......
  • Yeutter v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo., Court of Appeals No. 18CA0498
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 2019
    ...of this state have "uniformly held that a court should not read nonexistent provisions into the ... Act."); see also Kieckhafer v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 2012 COA 124, ¶ 16, 284 P.3d 202. Accordingly, the ALJ was not bound by Dr. Hattem's causation determination and committed no erro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT