Lobato v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

ap- Therefore, judgment of the court of respect issues

peals reversed remand, opinion. in this On

addressed merge the four convictions

trial court shall conviction, child into one on a

sexual assault sexual assault

merge four convictions of position of trust into by one in a

on a child conviction, resentence defendant

one

accordingly. LOBATO, Enrique

Petitioner:

v.

Respondents: CLAIM INDUSTRIAL of the State of

APPEALS OFFICE Forge.

Colorado Western

No. 03SC556. Colorado,

Supreme Court

En Banc.

Jan. Compensation

Workers’ Education Associa- tkm- P.C., Ogden, Ralph & Ogden,

Wilcox Den- ver, for Amicus Curiae Steven Mullens. U. Justice COATS dissents.

HOBBS, Justice. granted in We certiorari this workers’ compensation case to consider the effect of a Compensa- 1999 amendment to the Workers’ (Act) retroactively tion Act altering the timeline claimants’ selection of division a (DIME).1 independent medical examiner (ALJ), Judge The Administrative Law In- (ICAO), Appeals dustrial Claim Office Director Division of Workers’ (Director) Compensation sepa- issued three interpretations rate of how the 1999 amend- applies ment to cases like that petitioner Lobato, Enrique where a final admission of (FAL) liability gave that no new time limit was received the 1999 before effect. came into of appeals’ judgment We reverse the court IV(L)(3), hold Division Rule 7 Colo. (2004),2 Regs, Code section 1101-3 correct- ly legislature. effectuates the intent of the implement Assembly’s To the General dual policies ensuring notice to administrative procedural requirements claimants of and ex- pediting of existing the resolution Waldmann, Steven Springs, compensation claims, Lobato, R. Colorado we hold that Petitioner. whose occurred after 1991 and August and whose FAL was Dworkin, Williams, P.C., Chambers & filed before no had Dworkin, York, Denver, David J. Steven G. limit to select a DIME did not because he Respondent Forge. Western change receive notice of timeline. Assurance, Pinnacol Brandee DeFalco Gal- Therefore, in striking erred ALJ vin, Denver, for Amicus Pinnacol As- Curiae untimely, DIME as and the and the ICAO surance. appeals upholding court of erred or- P.C., MacDonald, Gordon judg- & William J. der. We reverse the court of appeals’ MacDonald, Denver, for Amicus Curiae ment and remand with to reinstate directions granted following opinion occurring 1. We certiorari on the issue: This refers to events over a span years. Changes appeals correctly of thirteen to statutes and Whether court of inter- 8-42-107.2, are, (2003), times, preted analysis. section 3 C.R.S. rules critical For requiring convenience, claimant with final admis- the sake of versions of current liability sion of filed before the effective date cited statutes rules are where there have request ex- statute changes gener- been relevant or the citation thirty days aminer within the effective date specific al. codification of a statute or Where statute, rejecting of the alternative important, particular rule is cited. version terpretation by the Director Division Compensation ultimately Workers' reflected IV(L), (2002)? Rule 7 OCR 1101-3 disability. permanent Lobato suffering re- report and to DIME claim and issue. pro- took no further action this for further the ALJ turn case to opinion. ceedings consistent with original injury, was trans- After his Lobato job Forge at Western

ferred to different 6, July employment. On and continued his I. 1995, injured his while at home Lobato back 28, 1992, petitioner Lobato On December evening. com- in the Lobato filed a workers’ injured of work his back in the course his claim, injury pensation alleging that his 1995 1993, Forge. In August, Western injury and aggravation an of the 1992 was report- him physician examined and primary suffering occupational an disease that he was medical reached maximum ed that he had injury. originating from the earlier (MMI) improvement for his work-related claim, the pendency of Lobato’s During the lasting impairment. had jury Assembly made amendments General two 1998, In Compensation Act. the Workers’ 25, filed FAL on March Forge its Western (1998 legislature H.B. 98-1062 enacted 43—203(2)(b)(II), 1994, section pursuant 8— amendment), defining which added a section FAL, Forge 3 In its Western procedure of DIMEs. for the selection stating liability, that Lobato denied further 8-42-107.2, 313, Laws § 1998 Sess. Ch. Colo. medically impaired or was not entitled required that claim- 1427. This new section printed continuing FAL was benefits. The thirty days of ants select their DIMEs within revised version Workers’ filing of the FAL. Id. at 1428. 4, provided the Divi- Compensation Form Compensation, included sion of Workers’ 1999, Assembly In enacted General following notice: (1999amendment), made H.B. 99-1049 which thirty-day applicable limit to “all time is the CLAIMANT: This NOTICE TO injury on or after open eases a date insurance carrier Final Admission 1, a division 1991 which your employer or case. self-insured medical examiner has not been selected.” you type disagree with amount or 86, 8-42-107.2, § Laws Ch. Colo. Sess. or benefits which carrier self-insured Sep- provision 254. came into effect on This pay, you agreed to must has 1,1999. at 255. tember Id. write a letter to Division Workers’ Lincoln, Floor, Compensation, 1120 14th application of The Director considered the Denver, 80203, you stating that Colorado Lobato’s, to cases such amendments liability. Please object to admission of filed FALs were before the where copy send a insurance carrier 1999, after consultation with amendment. you employer. If do not noti- self-insured General, Attorney published the Director fy you object writing that the division interpretation separate triggering that a her (60) sixty final admission event, from the enactment of aside admission, your date amendment, thirty- required to start automatically be closed as case will day running.3 limit This time issues admitted in the final admis- IV(L)(3). promulgated was as Rule sion. 2000, 31, that On the ALJ found October showing (emphasis timely his burden of original). Lobato filed Lobato had met objection suffering occupational that he was disease pursuant to the FAL original injury dis- stemming he from his provision, stating had MMI, had, with the that he was missed his claim. Dissatisfied reached but he Admission, report, my 3. opinion, with the revised Final or medical "[I]t is after consultation Office, Attorney period request 30-day General's that HB 99-1049 a ... before the interpreted requiring Whiteside, the de- should not be begins Mary run." Ann [D] IME [D] scribed individuals to 99-1049, commence tire Independent IME "HB of an Med- Selection process by application by September filing an Examiner," Claims, About Nov. 1999 ical All clearly 1999. The of HB reflect terms 99-1049 2. event, triggering new or there be a must finding continuing II. ALJ’s to assert that injury his the cause his 1995 appeals’ We reverse the court of Lobato problems, filed Notice and judgment and hold that Division Rule Proposal to Select a DIME on November IV(L)(3), 7 Regs, section Colo.Code 1101-3 January applied Lobato On (2004), correctly effectuates the intent for a DIME. implement legislature. To the General As sembly’s policies ensuring dual administra January Forge On Western tive notice to claimants of re application moved to strike Lobato’s as un- quirements expediting the resolution of timely under the 1999 amendment. None- compensation claims, theless, completed by DIME was Dr. Lobato, hold that whose occurred af 7, 2001, Sparr. March Sparr Michael On 1, 5, 1998, August ter 1991 and before reported suffering that Lobato was from and whose FAL September was filed before person percent impairment fifteen whole that 1, 1999, had no time limit to select DIME any pre-existing was not the result of condi- he because did not the receive 25, 2001, September tion. after an On evi- Therefore, in change the timeline. the ALJ dentiary hearing, granted ALJ Western the striking erred in DIME untimely, the and Forge’s report motion to DIME strike the the court appeals ICAO the erred from The the record. ALJ concluded that upholding the order. We remand this case opportunity dispute Lobato had lost to his appeals to the court of to reinstate the claim non-impairment the MMI determination report and DIME and instruct the ALJ by comply thirty-day failing the proceedings conduct further consistent with limit of the 1999 amendment. opinion. petitioned for Lobato review of the ALJ’s A. Standard of Review and decision, and the matter came before the Statutory Construction May ICAO. On the ICAO affirmed We proper review the construction claim, the concluding ALJ’s dismissal the novo; so, de in doing statutes we accord required that the 1999 amendment claimants agency’s deference to of its thirty days DIMEs select of the statute, but are it. by we not bound FAL, filing regardless of the of when the Inc., v. Longmont Toyota, Anderson 102 FAL Halsey filed. specially was Panelist 323, (Colo.2004). 326 agency P.3d When the on September concurred that basis 1 consistent, interpretation is not uniform or date of 1999 effective amendment was we do not extend will deference and look triggering event started Lobato’s statutory other construction aids. Colo. thirty-day period for selection of a DIME. 153, Meyer, Common Cause v. P.2d 159 758 proposed Because Lobato had met her (Colo.1988); see also United States v. Hea selection, September Halsey 30 deadline for 136, 148-49, 247, ley, 160 U.S. 16 S.Ct. 40 joined affirming the dismissal. (1895)(construing L.Ed. 369 effect amend appealed ruling Lobato the ICAO ment on de cases novo where subse appeals. Writing year court of one after the quent Secretaries of Interior offered dif IV(L)(3), promulgated Director had Rule interpretations). ferent appeals court of affirmed the ICAO. But the objective Our is to effectuate rejected reasoning majority court Assembly. purpose intent and of the General panelists adopted Halsey’s view that the Anderson, 326; at 102 P.3d Davison v. In effective date of the 1999 was amendment Appeals Office, 84 dus. Claim P.3d triggering thirty-day event (Colo.2004). statutory language 1029 If the period. The court ruling affirmed the ICAO clear, ordinary apply plain is we because Lobato had met the Anderson, meaning provision. 102 30,1999 deadline. 326; Luther, People v. P.3d at 58 P.3d (Colo.2002). petitioned reasonably Lobato this Court for certiorari 1015 If the statute appeals’ judgment. susceptible review of the court of we interpretations, different § apply and select a DIME. 8-42- proper interpretation ex- determine 107(8)(b)(II), (c). or insurer goals underlying the legislative amining the may file amended based under which it the circumstances provision, may request a findings of the DIME or consequences possi- and the adopted, hearing findings; they can be Anderson, contest constructions. See ble alternative convincing evidence. Booth, overturned clear and 326; v. Bd. Educ. at P.3d 8-43-107(8)(c). 8-43-107.2(4), §§ 2-4-203(1), (Colo.1999); § 639, 652 P.2d look to the statute’s also We there was no time limit Until history. purpose legislative declaration However, of DIMEs. the 1998 selection 326; Anderson, at Mountain 102 P.3d See procedures modified DIME v. P.2d City Oqueda, Co. Meat 313, § by adding limit. Ch. 8-42- a time (Colo.1996). statutory provisions are 107.2,1998 Laws 1427. Colo. Sess. conflict, interpretation adopt we will 8^2- The 1998 amendment added section possible. provisions best harmonizes 107.2, ex- “Selection of Anderson, 102 P.3d See procedure—time.” Id. amend- aminer — gave thirty claimants after the ment B. of DIMEs Selection request FAL was a DIME. Id. at filed context, remedy in To DIME put thirty-day 1428. the claimant missed process by injured which first review window, treating physician’s the authorized employees pursue medical benefits under binding parties. on all determinations were Act; then, we to the 1998 and 1999 turn required The that the notice Id. in case us. amendments at issue provision in FAL the new form include injury, Following workplace employ- a selecting limit for DIMEs. Id. at 1431. treating an authorized expressly er or insurer selects applica- The 1998 amendment was employee. § physician-who injuries 8- only occurring examines ble cases of on or 42-107(8)(b), 5,1998. The authorized August its Id. after effective date of the date on treating physician determines at 1432. employee reaches MMI and the

which the 1999, Assembly In the General amended any impairment due degree lasting of 86, again the Act with H.B. 99-1049. Ch. 8-42-107(8)(b)(I),(c). injury. § The 8-42-107.2, § 1999 Colo. Sess. Laws 254. or files an FAL which states the insurer Among changes, other the 1999 amendment degree liability related to the of its admitted retroactively applied process DIME rating. impairment date of MMI and the six, open through cases subsection which 8-43-203(l)(a). § entirety: in its reads compensable When an is filed and by This section was enacted House Bill 98- shown, injury employee is entitled to an regular as enacted second (TTD) disability temporary total and medical sixty-first general assembly, session of the help recoup wages lost treatment benefits and is remedial statute necessary earning capacity pay for purpose nature. of this is to The section 8-42-101(l)(a), §§ improve simplify already See 8-42-105. ex- treatment. remedies automatically isting rights TTD for benefits terminate when enforcement injuries treating physician determines under the worker’s’ authorized redress § compensation MMI. laws of This sec- employee that the has reached 8-42- Colorado. (sic) 105(3)(a). impairment procedures related to tion Permanent effected appli- an IME and be by degree of the selection shall benefits are measured last- open with ing by cable all cases a date impairment the author- as determined injury July on or for which a § treating ized See physician. 8-42- after 107(8)(d). requested, pur- division IME has been 8-42-107. suant section employee may objection The an file to the added). (emphasis at 254-55 Id. 8-43-203(2)(b)(II). only way § FAL. The injured statutory treating now with our con- challenge worker to We continue physician’s impairment analysis. findings MMI and struction 8-43-107.2(6) Ambiguous holding the ICAO’s C. Section this case can be seen Regard Applica- (sic) precluding with Section’s a number of claimant’s with Thus, tion to Cases Pre-Amendment obtaining a[ from ][D]IME. it rais- FALs es the same due concerns that ' present were in the Smith case which a [in language the 1999 amendment provision requiring pay claimants to requirements states the section challenged DIMEs was preclud- because it “open injury apply to cases” which the indigent ed claimants receiving from However, July on or occurred after DIME], application silent the amendment is on its added). Lobato’s, (emphasis no giving stay cases like where an FAL This order was later period selecting the time rescinded after the ICAO issued a corrected long opinion DIME was before the extending appeal. received 1998 and the time for proposed 1999 amendments were and no sub- interpretation, The Director’s as endorsed sequent provided. revised notice was Attorney sup- implicitly General and Director, ported by the Executive was later ambiguous A statute is if it is “rea IV(L)(3): promulgated as Rule sonably susceptible to interpreta different applies This subsection to claimants with Booth, case, tions.” 984 P.2d at 652. open claim with dates of on or agency charged officials with adminis August after 1991 and before of the Act have three tration offered irrecon the most recent valid Final interpretations. cilable Liability Septem- Admission of filed before interpretation, In the first the Director 1,1999 objection a timely ber to which was triggering required found that a event was filed the claimant but Division inde- thirty-day period. start Director pendent medical be- examination held was concerned that other carrier, September fore 1999. The self- legislature’s goal would not meet the of im- employer, employ- insured or non-insured proving simplifying process the DIME may er an amended Final Admission file process and that due would concerns arise Liability providing notice to the claim- of ant claimants were not notified the of new time requirement the to mail a notice of imposed limit Emphasizing on them. the proposal independent to select an problem, notice the Director stated that her per medical examiner C.R.S. section 8-42- interpretation require adequate would notice provide 107.2. Failure to such notice process of the revised DIME claimants: of Liability amended Final Admission interpretation Any require which would in preclude indicated this subsection shall 218, pre injuries with ‘post dividuals 1062’ carrier, employer the self-insured or non- to commence the within [D]IME employer asserting insured from that the 1, 1999, days 30 of would timely a claimant failed file notice and [DjIME ‘improve simplify’ proce- the proposal select dures; rather, greatly complicate it would per examiner C.R.S. section 8-42-107.2. Further, process. problem the the lack of provided by Final amended present notice to claimants would due carrier, Liability Admission self- process concerns. employer or insured non-insured Whiteside, 99-1049, Mary Ann “HB Selection precluded subsequently raising is not from Examiner,” Independent of an Medical All equitable argument, relevant such Claims, November, About at 2 (empha- 1999 waiver, or estoppel, regarding laches added). sis proposal whether the notice and was time- On June the Executive Director ly filed. Department Employ- of Labor and added). (emphasis staying ment issued an final order ICAO interpretation, thirty days the second the ALJ and order in this case for to extend panelists persuaded the time in two were that Lo- appeal which Lobato could ICAO issue, days thirty filing bato had from the Addressing ICAO decision. the notice DIME, in FAL in his Executive Director stated the order case select a even years that: though the was filed several be- 226 statutory design. It ALJ we look to the demon- was The time limit enacted.

fore the in 1999 requirement legislative ascertained strates a intent to ensure that triggering separate event for a amendment timely receive and accurate admin- claimants major FAL. The ICAO filing of the from the procedural rights. notice of their istrative rejected claim that the ity panelists history of legislative The amend- applied not be to him be could amendment move shows a second intent to ment comply for him impossible cause it was through system effectively claims The panelists relied provision. with the being expeditiously. purposes These the two Office, Appeals Claim Vetten v. Industrial applicable of the statute to the case before (Colo.App.1999),which held that 986 P.2d 983 us, give effect to both. claim was reopen petition a enacted by a limitations governed statute (2004), 43—203(2)(b)(II), Section 8— was filed because the petition after the governs the content of insurer’s or em- in na or remedial limitation ployer’s requires adequate FAL. The statute See, e.g., Title Co. v. Dist. ture. Cont’l procedural require- notice to the claimant of Court, P.2d ments: (Colo.1982)(“appli-cationsubsisting a a statute to claim ret prohibition relief does violate liability An final payment admission of effects legislation roactive where statute compensation shall include statement only procedural or change remedial that is final admission nature”). in court noted compensation insurance carrier DIME expressly stated that the amendment case, may that the claimant contest procedural and remedial nature. section is if the enti- admission claimant feels panelists legislative in Finally, the found no compensation, tled to more to whom the provide tent a safe harbor claimants provide objection, claimant should written pre-amendment with FALs. and notice to the claimant that the case by the The third was offered automatically will as to the be closed issues Halsey, con- concurring panelist, who ICAO admitted the final admission if the ambiguous sidered the 1999 not, thirty days does claimant regard Loba- after to this case concluded that admission, date contest thirty to had from the effective date final writing request admission in amendment to select DIME. final position. appeals adopted court this hearing any disputed on issues that are ripe hearing, including the for selection conflicting interpretations on Based three independent pursu- an medical examiner officials, provision by agency the same ambig- ant 8-42-107.2 if an conclude that the 1999 amendment is to section regard uous with to claimants already has medical examination been position. us in case question before conducted. only of this proper application concerns added). (emphasis The statute demonstrates injury oc- amendment to in which the cases important that an function the FAL is to or curred on after and provide procedur- to notice claimants of their 5, 1998; August the FAL was filed before 1, 1999; claimant, rights rights. al and those like limitations on and the Lobato, subsequent, no has revised received The statute effect 1994 when Western administrative notice. Forge provided filed the FAL in this case objec- procedures except that the same Assembly D. The General Intended for sixty days tion and there was no timeline Compensation Claimants to Workers’ § a DIME. 8- reference selection of Receive Notice Correct Procedural 43-203(2)(b)(II), 3 C.R.S. to Intended 1999 Amendment Existing Expedite Processing of statute, In conformance with the Claims Compensation Form for Final Ad- Workers’ Liability prepared the Divi- missions ambiguous Because section 8-43-107.2 cases, with regard application conspicuously provides procedural its to these sion hearings to claimants. The Lobato received was on the 1999 amendment in printed the Division’s 1991 form and both the on House and Senate demonstrate important legislative that time. tracked the statute it existed at second concern for expediting clearing high number of currently form The 2003 revised available compensation workers’ claims at the puts por- on the Division website the notice example, sponsor, time. For Rep- bill’s form, top type, at all in tion bold Paschall, resentative told the House Business clearly changes wrought by includes the Affairs and Labor Committee that the bill the 1999 amendment: get aimed “to cases off the books stream- you disagree If with the benefits admit- lining” clarifying for selec- you or not admitted must ted do Representative tion of DIMEs.5 Paschall following: that, also testified at the time of hearing, days, complete 1. the at- Within cases which the 1998 amendment timeline objection tached form or write a letter applicable was not languishing were in the Compen- to the Division of Workers’ Furthermore, system. sponsor, the Senate sation, Arapahoe St., Denver, CO Arnold, State, Senator told Senate Mili- copy 80202-2117 with insur- tary and Veterans’ Affairs Committee that ance carrier self-insured aimed to bill “cure flaw” in workers’ you stating object admis- compensation law which allowed cases to re- applica- sion. You must file an also if main in limbo DIME was selected.6 hearing tion for Division why When committee members asked Hearings Administrative dis- retroactivity added, provision was John Ber- puted issues. ry of Compensation the Workers* Coalition you days, 2. Within same parties answered that the negotia- to the bill disagree with the date of MMI or get “trying tions were more cases under person impairment rating, whole com- amendment],procedure.” [1998 plete Propos- the attached Notice and Accordingly, we poten- are faced with two Independent al an Medical Select tially conflicting Assembly General inten- Examiner form and send it to the in- 1) adequate tions: administrative surance carrier or self-insured em- claimants; 2) retroactivity notice to ployer and the Division. the 1999 amendment in order streamline requested, you 3. If IME is are procedures many compensa- required application to file an possible. tion cases as Because we are re- hearing until after the IME is com- quired conflicting provisions to harmonize pleted. Anderson, possible, a statute if see 102 P.3d your prior date of procedure we conclude that the out- July 1, 1991, provisions regarding IV(L)(3) properly lined in Rule effectuates Independent Medical Examiner do policies Assembly. of the General apply.4 Thus, the statute shows that the General Promulgated E. The Procedure in Divi- Assembly compensa- intended workers’ IV(L)(3) sion Rule Harmonizes Poten- tion claimants to receive FAL with ac- tially Conflicting Legislative Di- provided by employers curate notice in- n rectives surers. The Director and Division have ALJ’s, consistently steps taken appeals’ administrative The ICAO’s and court of implement legislative purpose. interpretations this amendment 6.Hearing 4. This form available on the Division's website: on H.B. 99-1049 the Senate Before Comm, http://www.coworkforce.com/DWC/Filla- ble_FormsWord/wc004final_admission.doc. State, Military Affairs, on and Veterans' Assem., 17, 1999). (February 62d Gen. 1st Sess. Audiotape by maintained Colorado State Ar- Comm, Hearing H.B. 99-1049 House Before chives. Labor, Assem., on Business 62d Gen. Affairs 26, 1999). (January Audiotape 1st Sess. main- State tained Colorado Archives. Assembly’s ensuring correct administrative notice.7 We the General effectuate this case IV(L)(3) only to a proce- applies that Rule 1998 amendment note make the intent to injuries expe- finite set of claimants: those whose open cases and to dure retroactive on or after 1991 and before open compen- occurred resolution dite the 5, 1998; filed be- important August whose FALs were claims, they ignore the but sation 1, 1999; timely who September fore that claimants receive legislative directive administrative, objected to the FAL but did not select notice. adequate 1999. The rule DIME before contrast, interpretation the Director’s In only applies to this definable number important the two to harmonize serves only they claims that will decrease are regard to legislature with tentions of the history of the legislative resolved. position. Rule in Lobato’s claimants plain language and in its 1999 amendment IV(L)(3) interpretation. implements deprive particular find no intention to these whereby em- provides procedure The rule claimants of administrative notice. provide can choose to or insurers ployers pre- claimants with notice to amended F. Conclusion preserve order to their FALs in appeals The ICAO and court of decisions of DIMEs. to the selection time-bar defenses Assembly’s derogate in this case the General correctly emphasizes the im- procedure This regard policy in notice of administrative pro- notice portance administrative majori- procedural requirements. The ICAO way particular these expedite vides require DIMEs ty would claimants to select open cases. FAL, thirty days of pre-amendment within ordinarily presume that citizens We they no admin- despite the fact received regulate their are of the laws aware requirement istrative notice of such a Walton, 86 Colo. conduct. Walton v. appeals passed. the deadline court of (1929)(Butler, J., dissent 278 P. require thirty would selection presumed know the ing)(“All persons are amendment, the effective date even law.”). However, presumption tem where no revised notice of the new deadline requirements pered by of due sent. Both of decisions has been these effec- and, proce requirement of specifically, the Assembly’s intent to tuate the General make Holmes, v. 959 P.2d People notice. dural See expedi- the 1998 amendment retroactive and (Colo.1998). that have Agencies tiously conflict resolve cases but functions, quasi-judicial such as the Division provide the intent to administrative notice to ICAO, required by procedural are claimants. give of their process principles due notice now hold that the em- We . individuals. procedures to affected See IV(L)(3) correctly harmonizes bodied Rule Douglas v. Public County Bd. Comm’rs important policies of the General two Assem- (Colo.1992). Utils., 1303, 1310 829 P.2d bly. Lobato did not receive notice which Assembly included an administrative General thirty-day lim- triggered would have requirement in the Act. it of the 1998 and 1999 amendments his IV(LX3) Therefore, procedure reconciles the case. those time limits did not The Rule in the his legislative apply two inherent Act case his DIME selection was directives timely. way expedite providing a claims while period potentially year grace “pro- set read into the statute 7. We have addressed a similar of conflicting legislative pur- before. In Peo- intentions a videfd] reasonable accommodation (Colo.1989), ple Fagerholm, v. 689 768 P.2d statute!,]" poses sought by be to achieved considered of for collateral the statute limitations namely "ensur[ing] finality adju- to that attaches legislature of attacks criminal convictions. The guilt, simultaneously of safe- dications while clearly litigation over stale intended to limit process rights guarding the due of convicted provision, but claims it enacted the later when IV(L)(3) 768 P.2d 692. Rule similar- felons.” exception for cases amended the statute with an legislature's ly bridges gap pri- between the justifiable neglect, excusable evi- excuse or mary expedite cases and its intent to concern dencing preserve an the due intent to adequate administrative notice. rights of a We concluded that five- defendants.

229 reasonably III. consider himself entitled to main- perpetuity, by failing simply tain action in ap- Accordingly, we court of reverse the pursue claim with expedi- to his reasonable peals’ judgment and remand with directions generally tion. See Lake Meredith Reservoir report Lobato’s claim and DIME reinstate Co., Amity Irrigation v.Co. Mut 698 P.2d case to the for further and return this ALJ (Colo.1985); 41(b); 1340 C.R.C.P. People cf. opinion. proceedings consistent with this (Colo.1988) (court Fuqua, v. 764 P.2d has obligation expeditiously). COATS, to rule J., dissenting. of the Division of Worker’s The Director Because I believe that claimants like may not, any than this Compensation more already subjected petitioner have themselves itself, ignore legislative court or re- dictates (for failing years) by proceed dismissal

write to reflect her notions statutes own claims, necessary component with a I their good public policy. Because fairness they unconstitutionally not do are believe 8-42-107.2, (2004), simply can- section by specific statutory a provision harmed forgivingly read as as Division Rule be clean-up long-dor- administrative of such IY(L)(3) it, reject I would have would matters, mant cases. Unlike certain like written, rule, af- as enforce statute overbreadth, questions of constitutional (although grounds) the court of firm on other may which raised be on behalf of others I appeals. respectfully therefore dissent. rights whose fundamental constitutional are statutory permit- to 1998 the scheme Prior implicated legislative action, by questions dispute findings of an ted a claimant concerning process may only due be raised contrary authorized medical examiner awith litigant adversely the extent that a is himself Exam, Independent long division Medical affected. See Vill. v. Estates of Hoffman objected days of the Final as he 950, Flipside, 456 U.S. S.Ct. -Liability. Although the claim- Admission I L.Ed.2d Since think it clear objections any ant not have could heard with- statutory that these amendments were IME, not speci- out a the statute division did unlikely apply tended to as written and are fy one. precise requesting a deadline for effect, constitutionally any prohibited to have Assembly, attempted The General any challenges I would address of unconstitu- ambiguity surrounding claim- resolve according application peculiar tional IME, expeditiously ant’s failure to secure by preemp- facts of the individual claim—not by requiring requested that within 30 one be tively rewriting the statute. The failure of mailing of the Final Admission claimant, petitioner, pursue like the his again expressly Liability; objections to an than five more requirement all making applicable to years being barred does not raise for open with a on or after cases date of anyme constitutional concern. had for which division IME Because I do not believe that the requested. not been 8-42-107.2, 1999 amendments to section or not of these language Whether written, precisely they when read are could am- amendments be characterized as unconstitutional, they threaten to be biguous purpose, simply for some it did interpreted sug- could as the Director be impu- involving admit construction they unconstitutional, gests, I were even provision tolling 30-day period tation respectfully dissent. given until claimant further notice event,” “triggering some even if such a sav-

ing provision would have been needed

preserve constitutionality the statute. fact, however, construing the amendments precisely they say

to mean what does not constitutionality.

raise doubt about their specific

Even im- without time limitation rule, litigant

posed by statute or could

Case Details

Case Name: Lobato v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

Court Name: Supreme Court of Colorado

Date Published: Jan 18, 2005

Citation: 105 P.3d 220

Docket Number: 03SC556

Court Abbreviation: Colo.