W.C. No. 4-279-368Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
November 2, 2000
ORDER OF REMAND
The claimant seeks review of an order of Administrative Law Judge Hopf (ALJ) which apportioned liability for medical benefits. We remand the matter for a determination of whether there was a timely filed request for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The hearing in this matter was held on November 29, 1999. On December 27, 1999, the ALJ entered a summary order which required the respondents to pay 30 percent of the medical expenses incurred by the claimant to treat a neck injury. The summary order bears a certificate of mailing dated December 28, 1999. The ALJ entered specific findings of fact on January 31, 2000.
Section 8-43-215, C.R.S. 1999 [significantly amended as to claims filed or pending on April 28, 2000], provides that: “Any party dissatisfied with a summary order may request specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in writing within fifteen days after the date of the certificate of mailing of the summary order.” Failure to request specific findings within the statutory time limit is jurisdictional and mandates dismissal of the appeal Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, ___ P.3d ___ (Colo.App. No. 99CA0963, March 2, 2000); Reed v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, ___ P.3d ___ (Colo.App. No. 99CA0084, January 20, 2000). Furthermore, jurisdiction may not be waived or destroyed by consent, nor may it be conferred by estoppel. Hasbrouck v. Industrial Commission, 685 P.2d 780 (Colo.App. 1984).
The record transmitted to us on review does not contain a request for specific findings of fact. Moreover, the ALJ’s January 31 order does not contain any findings of fact concerning whether there was a timely filed request for specific findings. Because we lack authority to conduct hearings and make findings of fact, the matter must be remanded to the ALJ with directions to determine whether there was a timely filed request for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, (Colo.App. No. 99CA1439, April 20, 2000) (not selected for publication) (due process entitles parties to opportunity to make argument that request for specific findings timely filed). Once the ALJ determines the timeliness of the request for specific findings, she may dismiss the claimant’s appeal or transmit the matter to us for review of the substantive issue. Chu v. Sealy, Inc., W.C. No. 4-354-260 (May 24, 2000).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the matter is remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
___________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
___________________________________ Dona Halsey
Copies of this decision were mailed November 2, 2000 to the following parties:
Debie Cuherpin, 479 Wright St., #304, Lakewood, CO 80228-1104
Foley’s, 15 S. Steele, Denver, CO 80209
Timothy Mullarkey, Central Regional Claims Corporation, May Company, 614 Locust St., St. Louis, MO 63101-1701
Sally L. MacLuckie, Esq., 3515 S. Tamarac Dr., #200, Denver, CO 80237 (For Claimant)
Robert A. Weinberger, Esq. and Kristin M. Murphy, Esq., 1700 Broadway, #1910, Denver, CO 80290 (For Respondent)
By: A. Pendroy