Kuhndog, Inc. v. Ind. Claim Appeals Office
Decision Date | 19 March 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 08CA1926.,08CA1926. |
Parties | KUHNDOG, INC., a Colorado corporation, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE of the State of Colorado and Director of the Division of Workers Compensation, Respondents. |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Martin D. Kuhn, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Petitioner.
John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Katie A. Allison, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Respondents.
Opinion by Judge TAUBMAN.
In this workers' compensation proceeding, Kuhndog, Inc. (employer) seeks review of the final order issued by the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) upholding the fine imposed for its failure to carry workers' compensation insurance. Because we conclude that the procedure utilized by the Division of Workers' Compensation did not violate employer's due process rights, we affirm.
Employer received a Director's Notice to Show Compliance stating that division records indicated its business did not have workers' compensation insurance. The notice required employer to complete a compliance questionnaire within twenty days and to provide an explanation and proof that it either had insurance or was exempt from the Workers' Compensation Act. The notice also informed employer that (1) following expiration of the twenty-day response period, the director would make findings regarding whether employer was exempt or in compliance with its insurance obligations, and if employer was not in compliance, the director would impose fines or other sanctions; (2) if no timely or complete response was submitted, the director would rely solely on division records to determine whether employer was in default and whether fines would be imposed; (3) employer could request a prehearing conference on the issue of default, but must do so prior to the expiration of the twenty-day response period; and (4) if the director found employer to be in default, fines and an order to cease and desist business operations could be imposed by the director.
Employer failed to respond and the director issued an order finding it in default and imposing a fine. Employer filed a petition to review, and the director issued a supplemental order upholding the finding of default, noting that the fine was imposed pursuant to an escalating scale of fines under the rules ($5 per day for the period of default preceding the notice of default), finding that it was not excessive, and increasing the fine to a total of $22,400 based on employer's continuing default. The Panel affirmed the supplemental order on review.
Initially, employer appears to argue that service of the notice to show compliance by mail was insufficient. We disagree. According to Department of Labor and Employment Rule 1-4(1)(A), 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-3, proper service is to be made by mail. See Bowlen v. Munford, 921 P.2d 59, 60 (Colo.App.1996) ( ).
Employer does not argue that service by mail is not reasonably calculated to effect the required notice. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (); Schmidt v. Langel, 874 P.2d 447, 451 (Colo.App.1993) ( ). Further, the record indicates, and employer does not contest, that it received actual notice. Accordingly, the service made in this instance was not constitutionally deficient. See EZ Bldg. Components Mfg., LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 74 P.3d 516, 518 (Colo.App.2003) ( ).
Employer next contends that section 8-43-409, C.R.S.2008 — which subjects an employer to sanctions, including fines, for the failure to comply with the insurance requirements of the Workers' Compensation Act — violates due process because it does not mandate that an evidentiary hearing occur prior to the issuance of a default order. Again, we disagree.
The imposition of penalties constitutes a deprivation of property and, therefore, implicates employer's due process rights. See Hargett v. Dir., 854 P.2d 1316 (Colo.App. 1992), disapproved of in part by Colo. Comp. Ins. Auth. v. Nofio, 886 P.2d 714, 719 n. 8 (Colo.1994).
The fundamental requisites of procedural due process are notice and the opportunity to be heard. Hendricks v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 809 P.2d 1076, 1077 (Colo.App. 1990). Due process is a flexible standard that does not call for any specific procedure as long as an opportunity for a hearing and judicial review is provided. Kroupa v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 53 P.3d 1192, 1195 (Colo.App.2002). Essentially, it requires fundamental fairness in procedure. Salazar v. Am. Sterilizer...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People ex rel. T.B.
...time and, like other punishments, a signal of social disapproval of unlawful behavior."); see also Kuhndog, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 207 P.3d 949, 950 (Colo. App. 2009) ("The imposition of penalties constitutes a deprivation of property and, therefore, implicates employer's due......
-
Dami Hospitality, LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo.
...17 The "fundamental requisites of procedural due process are notice and the opportunity to be heard." Kuhndog, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 207 P.3d 949, 950 (Colo. App. 2009).¶ 18 The Director's Notice to Show Compliance, informing Dami of its "subsequent violation" of section 8-4......
-
Baum v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo.
...App. 2007), aff'd sub nom. Avalanche Indus., Inc. v. Clark , 198 P.3d 589 (Colo. 2008) ; see also Kuhndog, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 207 P.3d 949, 950 (Colo. App. 2009) (Due process "requires fundamental fairness in procedure."). ¶ 15 A claimant asserting that a statute is uncon......