W.C. Nos. 4-385-490 4-728-064.Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
March 11, 2009.
PROCEDURAL ORDER
This matter is before us pursuant to the “Claimant’s Opposed Motion for Relief From Judgment Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 60(B)(2) and A Request for Penalties Pursuant to 8-43-304.” As we read the claimant’s motion she requests that we again review ALJ Cannici’s order based on allegations made by the claimant in her motion. In her motion, the claimant contends that the respondents made misrepresentations that deprived her of a fair hearing before ALJ Cannici. The claimant requests that we set aside ALJ Cannici’s order, and impose penalties on the respondents.
We entered an order dated January 6, 2009, which the claimant has appealed. In addition, we entered a corrected order on January 14, 2009. Under § 8-43-302 C.R.S. 2008 we may issue a corrected order within thirty days after the entry of an order to correct any clerical errors or correct any errors caused by mistake or inadvertence. The claimant’s motion here was received by the Office of Administrative Courts on February 25, 2009 and then forwarded on to us. Therefore, the claimant’s motion was not timely filed under the thirty day requirement of § 8-43-302 for corrected orders.
Further, our jurisdiction is restricted by the specifications in § 8-43-301 C.R.S. 2008. Lewis v. Scientific Supply Co., 897 P.2d 905
(Colo.App. 1995). Under § 8-43-301(8) we may review the ALJ’s order to determine whether the findings of fact are sufficient to permit appellate review, whether conflicts in the evidence have been resolved, whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record, whether the findings of fact support the order, and whether the order is contrary to the law. However, our appellate review § 8-43-301(8) does not afford the Industrial Claim
Page 2
Appeals Office jurisdiction to reopen a claim based on allegations of fraud. We note that the Workers’ Compensation Act does contain a provision for reopening a claim based on fraud pursuant to § 8-43-303
C.R.S. 2008 but a petition to reopen would not be brought before us. In any event, we refer the matter back to the Office of Administrative Courts for review of the claimant’s motion and corresponding responses See § 8-43-201, C.R.S. 2008.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the “Claimant’s Opposed Motion for Relief From Judgment Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 60(B)(2) and A Request for Penalties Pursuant to 8-43-304” is denied for lack of jurisdiction and the matter is forwarded to the Office of Administrative Courts for its consideration.
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS PANEL
____________________________________ John D. Baird
____________________________________ Thomas Schrant
Page 3
MICHELLE FELIX, DENVER, CO, (Claimant), OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Attn: OLIVIA L HUDSON SMITH, ESQ., C/O: LITIGATION SECTION, DENVER, CO, (For Respondents).
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Attn: JEAN BAINES, DENVER, CO, (Other Party).
Page 1