Schneider Nat. Carriers, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of State, 98CA0393
| Decision Date | 27 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 98CA0393,98CA0393 |
| Citation | 969 P.2d 817 |
| Parties | 98 CJ C.A.R. 5961 SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC. and Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. The INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF the STATE of Colorado and William Slaughter, Decedent, Respondents. . A |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Hall and Evans, L.L.C., Alan Epstein, Denver, Colorado; Mann & Shappell, W. Berkeley Mann, Jr., Denver, Colorado, for Petitioners.
Steven U. Mullens, P.C., Steven U. Mullens, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for William Slaughter, Deceased.
No Appearance for Respondent Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
Opinion by Judge NEY.
In this workers' compensation proceeding, Schneider National Carriers, Inc., and its insurer, Pacific Employers Insurance Company, (collectively employer) petition for review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) dismissing their appeal of an order requiring them to pay death benefits to the dependent adult daughter of the deceased employee, William Slaughter (decedent). We deny the daughter's motion to dismiss the appeal and affirm the order.
The initial order to pay death benefits was issued in July 1997. Employer filed a timely petition to review this order, asserting general allegations of error as well as a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Employer also contended that the adult daughter was not wholly dependent on decedent and that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had erred in failing to rule on the admissibility of decedent's bank records. In response, the daughter conceded that the ALJ should issue a supplemental order ruling on the admissibility of the bank records, and consider those records with regard to the dependency issue.
The ALJ issued a supplemental order in October 1997. Aside from granting the request for the admission of the bank records, the ALJ incorporated the July 1997 order. The ALJ specifically found that consideration of the bank records did not persuade him to change his earlier finding that the daughter's mother testified credibly as to the dependency issue. The order concluded with a statement that the supplemental order was final unless a petition to review was filed within 20 days of the date of mailing.
Employer failed to file a petition to review the supplemental order. Asserting that several issues remained unresolved by the supplemental order, it requested a decision on these issues by the Panel. The Panel concluded that the filing of a petition to review the supplemental order was a jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal and, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
Employer filed in this court a timely petition to review the Panel's order. The daughter filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the failure to file a petition to review the supplemental order deprived both the Panel and this court of jurisdiction over the ALJ's July 1997 order. However, because employer now seeks review of the Panel's order on jurisdiction, and that appeal was perfected, see § 8-43-301(10), C.R.S.1998, the appellate process cannot be circumvented by way of dismissal. Instead, we deny the motion and consider the merits of this appeal, which concerns jurisdiction, not dependency benefits.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leprino Foods v. Ind. Claim Appeals Office, No. 04CA1379.
...an objection to the DIME physician's findings, to resolve a dispute as to those findings. See Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 969 P.2d 817 (Colo.App.1998)(because filing requirements are jurisdictional, statutory provisions governing such requirements must be ......
-
Youngs v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo.
...filing requirements are jurisdictional, such statutory provisions must be strictly construed.” Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 969 P.2d 817, 818 (Colo. App. 1998).C. Claimant Must File a Petition to Review ¶14 Claimant first contends that the Panel erred in ho......
-
Youngs v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of State
...are jurisdictional, such statutory provisions must be strictly construed.” Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 969 P.2d 817, 818 (Colo.App.1998).C. Claimant Must File a Petition to Review ¶ 14 Claimant first contends that the Panel erred in holding that it did not......
-
Brodeur v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 05CA2176.
...filing of a timely petition to review, the Panel lacks jurisdiction to review the ALJ's order. See Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 969 P.2d 817 (Colo.App.1998); Buschmann v. Gallegos Masonry, Inc., 805 P.2d 1193 (Colo.App.1991). Any unfairness that may result ......
-
Update on Colorado Appellate Decisions in Workers' Compensation Law
...State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Cabs, Inc., 751 P.2d 61 (Colo. 1988); Smith v. Edson, 888 P.2d 345 (Colo.App. 1994). 40. 969 P.2d 817 (Colo.App. 41. 757 P.2d 1146 (Colo.App. 1988). 42. 28 Colo.Law.. 182 (May 1999) (App. No. 98CA1343, annc'd 3/18/99) (Taubman, J., dissentin......