W.C. No. 4-382-047.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
June 13, 2003.
FINAL ORDER
The claimant’s attorney has filed a petition to review the order of the Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation (Director) which imposed penalties for his violation of a prehearing order. We dismiss the petition to review because it was not timely filed.
The Director entered an order dated October 12, 2002, which assessed penalties against the claimant’s attorney and the claimant’s estate, jointly and severably, for violation of a prehearing order which struck the claimant’s application for a Division-sponsored independent medical examination. The claimant’s attorney filed a petition to review that order. On February 14, 2003, the Director entered a Supplemental Order which only imposed penalties against the claimant’s attorney. The claimant’s attorney then filed a petition to review the Supplemental Order insofar as it continued to impose penalties against the attorney.
Since the Director’s Supplemental Order did not alter the imposition of penalties against the claimant’s attorney, this matter effectively is before us on the attorney’s petition to review the Director’s original order imposing those penalties. See Michalski v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 757 P.2d 1146 (Colo.App. 1988). Section 8-43-301(2), C.R.S. 2002, provides that an order is final unless a petition to review the order is filed “within twenty days from the date of the certificate of mailing of the order.” The statute also allows the petition to review to be filed by mail and states that the petition shall be deemed filed upon the date of mailing.
The requirement to file a timely petition to review is jurisdictional, and must be strictly enforced. Buschmann v. Gallegos Masonry, Inc., 805 P.2d 1193 (Colo.App. 1991). Moreover, jurisdiction may not be conferred by waiver, consent, or estoppel. Hasbrouck v. Industrial Commission, 685 P.2d 780 (Colo.App. 1984). Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to review an order unless the record demonstrates a timely petition to review was filed. Digital Equipment Corp. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 894 P.2d 54 (Colo.App. 1995).
Here, the Director’s October 12 order contains a certificate of mailing dated October 17, 2002. Consequently, a petition to review had to be filed no later than November 6, 2002. The petition to review the Director’s October 12 order contains a certificate of mailing dated November 12, 2002, and a date stamp indicating it was received by the Division of Workers’ Compensation on November 15, 2002. Under these circumstances, the petition to review was untimely and we lack jurisdiction to review the Director’s October 12 order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition to review the Director’s order imposing penalties against the claimant’s attorney is dismissed with prejudice.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ Kathy E. Dean
____________________________________ Bill Whitacre
NOTICE
This Order is final unless an action to modify or vacate this Order is commenced in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 East 14th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, by filing a petition for review with the Court, within twenty (20) days after the date this Order is mailed, pursuant to §8-43-301(10) and § 8-43-307, C.R.S. 2002. The appealing party must serve a copy of the petition upon all other parties, including the Industrial Claim Appeals Office, which may be served by mail at 1515 Arapahoe, Tower 3, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202.
Copies of this decision were mailed June 13, 2003 to the following parties:
Carol Kennedy, Estate of Paul Dannaman, 5305 22nd St., Lubbock, TX 79407
Sturgeon Electric Company, 12150 E. 112th, Henderson, CO 80640
Kevin Krayna, Zurich Insurance Company, P. O. Box 370308, Denver, CO 80237
Chris L. Ingold, Esq., 501 S. Cherry St., #500, Denver, CO 80246 (For Claimant)
Marsha A. Kitch, Esq., 1202 Bergen Pkwy., #311, Evergreen, CO 80439 (For Respondents)
BY: A. Hurtado