 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pacesetter Corp. v. Collett5/10/2001
ing compensability absent a showing of why that admission was improvidently filed. However, pursuant to HLJ Management Group, Inc. v. Kim, supra, whenever an admission of liability is contested by either party, the matter placed in issue is subject to determination by the ALJ at an adversary hearing, and the admission remains binding only until an order resolving the controversy is entered. Further, as the Panel noted, it is well established that the claimant must prove the existence of a compensable injury. Section 8-41-301(1)(b), C.R.S. 2000; Faulkner v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 12 P.3d 844 (Colo. App. 2000). Consequently, we agree with the Panel that employer did not have to show why its admission was improvidently filed in order to contest liability, and we reject claimant's assertion that, without such a showing, the admission had conclusive and binding effect.
Moreover, contrary to employer 's representation, the record shows that the effectiveness of both the general admission and employer's letter revoking it were addressed at the hearing before the ALJ. We therefore are satisfied that this issue was sufficiently raised to preserve it for our review. See Sneath v. Express Messenger Service, 931 P.2d 565 (Colo. App. 1996)(a party does not need to identify an issue in explicit terms to preserve it, when analogous arguments have been made).
Notwithstanding our holding that withdrawal of the admission did not depend upon a showing of improvidence or error, we also conclude that the Panel did not err in permitting the admission to be withdrawn only from the date of the hearing. Employer complains that the general admission was never actually "filed" because the division never received its copy. However, the Panel relied upon decisions in which the employer was deemed to have substantially complied with the requirements of § 8-43-203, C.R.S. 2000, even though no written admission or denial was ever filed. See Dorris v. Gardner Zemke Co., 765 P.2d 602 (Colo. App. 1988)(substantial compliance where the admission of liability was filed with the division and benefits were paid, but the claimant did not receive a copy); Hanson v. Industrial Commission, 716 P.2d 477 (Colo. App. 1986)(oral admission of liability at hearing constituted sufficient compliance).
The Panel also observed that employer did not deny ever mailing the admission to the division. Thus, the Panel reasoned that no rational basis existed upon which employer should benefit from the fortuitous circumstance that its otherwise proper admission had failed to reach the division's file. We agree with the Panel and conclude that the cases upon which it relied are not distinguishable simply because the context in which substantial compliance was found involved the avoidance of penalties. Here, as in those cases, the statutory objectives of protecting the employee and notifying him of the legal ramifications associated with a claim were fulfilled. See Smith v. Myron Stratton Home, 676 P.2d 1196 (Colo. 1984). Thus, we conclude the Panel did not err when it determined that employer's admission substantially complied with § 8-43-203(1)(a), at least for purposes of requiring continued payments under § 8-43-203(2)(d).
Although employer maintains that the issue of partial effect was not asserted before the ALJ and consequently was not preserved for the Panel's consideration, we previously noted that the legal impact of the general admission was an issue raised before the ALJ. Because we view that issue as sufficiently broad to encompass the more limited question regarding when the admission could be revoked, we do not perceive any error on the part of the Panel in addressing that question.
II.
<
Page 1 2 3 4 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|