Colorado Supreme Court case----Youngquist

Decided February 2017 is the Youngquist case. This case was an appeal from the lower court and addressed the issue

of jurisdiction over a non Colorado business. The employer was a North Dakota business that hired a Colorado resident by phone and sent him a travel ticket. He was injured outside of Colorado but sought to use the Colorado workers compensation system. As a claimant he was successful at a hearing and at appeals until the last stop was the Colorado Supreme Court. That court decided that there was no jurisdiction over the employer so Colorado could not proceed on the claim. The key point in cases like this is the extent of contacts by the out of state business with Colorado. If deemed significant then Colorado would have the power to decide the entire claim. But fundamental fairness does require enough contact with the state for Colorado to exercise jurisdiction. In this case the court determined there was not much to connect Colorado to this employer. There was a phone call and the travel ticket was sent by email. There was no presence of anyone acting for the business in Colorado. There was no business being conducted in Colorado. Cases like this are decided on very specific facts but they do tell us that being a Colorado resident is not enough by itself for you to file a Colorado claim. Now most cases involve work being done in Colorado so the facts of this case are not common but it is important to realize that the Colorado Supreme Court does at times get involved in work injury cases.

Brown Bag for August 2016

As we have previously indicated the Brown Bag seminar has been held once a month and it is designed to review new cases. Those cases may be court cases or appeals from the original workers comp hearing which goes to the Industrial Claim Appeals Panel (ICAP). In August 2016 we had another review. The August case decisions can be read and are available for all interested people. Additionally the

seminar lecturer has a video where you can see his own review of each case. When you are seeking any of this material including the video you can access it here. In this latest month I read several interesting cases but I point out two in this post. Hutchison is an ICAP case which is a very unfortunate situation. The claimant was only able to cover one-third of his medical expenses for a surgery. He had pre-existing causal factors such that only one-third of his work aggravation came from work activities. My view is that his need for surgery came from the aggravation from his work activities so it should have been fully covered but the case reminds us that apportionment can occur in workers compensation. Read the case for the analysis of ICAP. The other case is the Hoff case which was a court of appeals decision. You can read the case and see that the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the earlier decision by the Court of Appeals. The facts relate to a cancelled workers comp insurance policy so it is not a common circumstance but it does let us know that the appeal of a workers comp decision at hearing can sometimes reach the Supreme Court.

Brown Bag March 2016 includes Youngquist Court case

As usually happens there was a Brown Bag lunch seminar presented by Judge Eley. The presentation is in a Part 1 and a Part 2. The reading material which consists of the actual cases for March 2016 is

Keel Court of Appeals case

In January 2016 the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the Keel case. The case involved someone from out of state coming into Colorado to work. He died in an

on the job injury. He received benefits in his home state. Colorado also had benefits which were applied for. The case concerned the offset that was given for his receipt of the out of state benefits. The court determined that the statutory law mandates only a partial offset so the Colorado benefits would be higher then that calculated by the lower decision. While this issue seldom comes up it does point out that most of the time a statute will be enforced as it is literally written. Benefits for claimants are sometimes reduced by the receipt of other benefits but often not as much as you might expect. It is always worthwhile to double check the math so that a claimants benefits are maximized.

The Latest Brown Bag of cases

On November 19th there was another Brown Bag seminar by Prehearing Judge Eley that covered the recent notable cases. While there are no published cases from the appeals courts there were cases at the lower levels which we call ICAP (Industrial Claim Appeals Panel). These cases are the next level up after a hearing decision. They tell us what cases are being appealed. You are urged to listen to

the online materials for November. Attorneys can obtain continuing legal education credits by listening to these short seminars monthly but anyone can benefit by listening to the case review by Judge Eley. Moreover each month they also post the cases which you can read on your own. Perhaps the case which I found most interesting was the Baran case. It lets us know that the issue of permanent injury should be deferred until the DIME (Division Independent Medical Examination) is performed. There the other side wanted to close out the case but the claimant wanted to pursue a DIME. My experience with the DIME process is that in the vast majority of times it is better to go for it then to ignore your right to it. It does require a judgment call by the attorney or party but if properly done it can often greatly benefit a claimant. The treating physician is seldom independent and often can rate the injury as too low. He can even say treatment is over when another doctor may believe that more treatment can help. The DIME process is a great process to use provided you obtain a good physician for the exam. The selection process requires careful analysis and choice but an experienced attorney usually gains much for the claimant by using the process. In any event you can review the Baran case and other recent cases by reading or listening to this Brown Bag seminar for November 2015.

Oil Worker case makes the Denver Post

It is not often that a initial workers comp hearing decision makes the papers but this one did. It is not an appeals court case but the article indicates it will not be appealed. The case involved a deceased oil worker. It appears he was tank gauging or opening a tank to

measure oil levels. He inhaled a toxic mixture of deadly chemicals and died. The case was contested by asserting the workers diabetes, hypertension and coronary artery disease caused his demise. Apparently there have been several deaths doing this work activity and the thought was those deaths were natural from health problems but this is changing. In this case after a two day hearing the judge ruled it was a valid claim for a work injury. The Denver Post picked up on the case and wrote about the decision. You can read their article by clicking here. It reports the widow will receive $530 a week for life. It is clear that the claimants attorney did a very good job. It also sets the stage for others to make claims and it may also lead to increased safety efforts. Bravo!

The Coats case or when is medical pot legal and illegal

Yesterday the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in the Coats case. In that case a disabled employee for the Dish Network was terminated under its no tolerance drug policy. The worker was productive but required medically prescribed marijuana.

He used it in off duty time but of course the mere presence of it in his system was enough that the company felt compelled to terminate him. Now in Colorado medical marijuana is legally allowed by state law so the employee sued because of this termination. He lost because it was determined that medical marijuana is illegal under federal law and its not enough to be legal under state law. Eventually the case reached the Colorado Supreme Court and they also affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit. Essentially they also ruled that because medical marijuana is illegal under federal law the termination of the employee was proper despite it being legal in Colorado. Now we all know that the federal law is not being enforced in Colorado so does this play any role? Could you assert that the federal law application has been waived or even that the Colorado law has been in effect approved as proper by the feds? It appears in Colorado the answer is that medical pot is legal and illegal and that is the way it is. In terms of workers compensation the potential benefit of medical marijuana is going to complicate matters if it is prescribed to an employee who works for a company that terminates for such use. In Colorado it is now legal and illegal to take any amount of marijuana. That is a tough place to be if it stays this way. For now Coats is the law.

New case on Volunteer Fireman Decided April, 23, 2015

Once again a volunteer fireman case reached the Court of Appeals. In the Smith case a volunteer fireman was injured on the way to a fire chiefs meeting. His claim was upheld but contested by Teller County and this led to an appeal. The contest was based on a number of

factors so there were several defenses. Teller County asserted the claimant was not an employee and was not attending a sanctioned activity. They also asserted that there was improper fact finding by the appeals panel and they felt the claim should be barred under the going and coming rule which can exclude a claim if it was coming from or going to work. The court disagreed with Teller County on all of their defenses and affirmed the benefits for the volunteer fireman. I am amazed at how often volunteers are considered important until they file a claim. Then they are not covered and that was the position of Teller County in this appeal. Fortunately the law protected this volunteer and the case is a good read on overcoming the arguments made by an employer. This is one where the good guys win.

Court case Kilpatrick decided March 12, 2015

A recent court case was issued on March 12, 2015. In Kilpatrick the claimant sought to reopen a closed case based on new evidence. As part of his efforts claimant sought discovery of the insurers financial records of monetary gifts to any

Division or hearing office personnel including judges. This was denied as over-burdensome and became part of the appeal by claimant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision yet it concluded that all judges are subject to such disclosures despite the fact that no regulations have been set up on this. It concluded the claimants remedy is with the Division or hearing office not the court in denying claimants assertion of a denial of equal protection of the law. I question this conclusion when the claimant is denied disclosures by administrative inaction. Still unless this is appealed the Kilpatrick case does limit discovery. Every party truly may need discovery to ascertain the issues, the witnesses and the evidence. To me this includes any monetary favors provided to a judge. While bribery is unlikely and most judges are highly ethical I do believe such matters should be fully disclosed. Next, the claimant argued that the doctor rescinded his opinion that the claimant needed no further treatment with a new opinion based on new evidence. However the hearing judge decided that the case should not be reopened. The judge did not accept the doctors change of opinion. The judge believed the change was equivocal and not enough to justify reopening. Certainly a judge can weigh the evidence and absent an abuse of his discretion a judge's determination cannot be set aside. I disagree with this and would assert an outright rescinding should not be considered equivocal. Still you are encouraged to read the case yourself for all the details. There were other concerns but none to permit a favorable decision for the claimant. In this case the claimant lost his appeal unless he can get the Colorado Supreme Court to look at it.

Court of Appeals case decided October 9, 2014

Just recently decided the Hoff case concerned workers compensation insurance coverage and the assertion by a party of promissory estoppel. In this case the claimant sustained serious work

related injuries. Hoff owned a rental property which had hail damage. She hired a contractor to deal with the insurance and then to repair roof damage. That contractor subcontracted the work to another contractor. The original contractor sought to make sure the roofing contractor had workers comp coverage. This was provided but when the injury happened the workers comp insurer denied coverage due to nonpayment of premium (cancellation of coverage). Hoff asserted they had no notice of the cancellation and relied on the promise of coverage that was initially provided. The hearing judge and ICAP decided that Hoff had no standing to question the cancellation and this appeal followed. The court concluded there was a basis to assert promissory estoppel and Hoff had standing. While this case is a dispute between various contractors it is always good that a claimant brings in enough parties that may have insurance coverage. Lack of coverage can harm the claimants ability to be compensated and have his medical bills paid. In any event read the case for the details.

The Coats case Oral Arguments

On September 30th, 2014 the Colorado Supreme Court held oral arguments on the Coats case. This case involved the termination of an employee after a random drug test for having the presence of marijuana in their body. It was consumed off work and yet the employer had a no tolerance policy. The lower court dismissed the wrongful termination case even though the employee argued he was disabled and it was medically prescribed marijuana. I reported on this in an earlier post. Todays oral arguments were quite interesting even if the discussion seemed to center on technical points. The Denver Post has an article on it which it posted today. You can read the article which also has a link to the oral arguments. By clicking there you can at least for a while see a video of the arguments. A big part of the case is that while Colorado has a law permitting medical use of marijuana the federal law makes it illegal. Mr Coats was asserting he was doing something lawfully permitted off work premises so the termination was wrong by Colorado law. The employer also argued so the outcome is uncertain. In any event a decision can be expected which I will await. In the meantime the case has been interesting to follow. While not a workers comp case this case has an effect in workers compensation cases. Perhaps an injured worker will be prescribed marijuana or perhaps such a worker will be terminated after his work injury if he is tested for marijuana in his system. Employers may seek to terminate and stop temporary benefits in such a case. I guess we shall see what recourse the employee may have. Given also that recreational use of marijuana is permitted now in Colorado what about these no tolerance policies? The court may address this or may simply choose to avoid the issue on some technicality. Time will tell.

The Latest ICAP cases

Every month there is an update on the latest ICAP (Industrial Claim Appeals Panel) cases. These are not court appeal cases but rather are the next step to appeal after a hearing decision a party does not agree with. There are many such appeals monthly and from them

a selection is made to review. At least this provides us with some of the more interesting cases. Fortunately, these cases are posted at the Division website for anyone to read. The latest such review is shown here. There are 12 cases shown along with one court case of interest to the reviewer. These cases remind us of what is going on at recent hearings. Some of these cases may even be appealed further. Many may not be appealed. Many of us in this area enjoy getting these cases and the review which comes with them. For a list of several months of these cases you can click here. If you work in this field or even if you just wish to know what is happening in this area it is useful to have this resource. Attorneys even obtain continuing legal education credit for following this monthly program.

Marijuana and employment...the Coats case

Back in April 2013 the Colorado Court of Appeals issued the Coats case. It is not a workers compensation case but instead is a wrongful termination case. Still it will impact workers compensation. It is now on further appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court with oral arguments set for later this year with a decision to follow most likely in 2015. What makes it interesting and controversial is that it concerns marijuana. A worker was

terminated under the no tolerance policy of his employer when he tested positive for marijuana despite it being medicinal marijuana. The employee was a quadriplegic and did not use marijuana on his employers premises and his work was not affected. He sued and asserted the termination was wrongful. The court of appeals decided a dismissal of his case was proper despite medicinal marijuana use being lawful and permitted in Colorado based on its view it was unlawful by federal law. Imagine workers with various ailments taking medicinal marijuana after work hours being terminated based on a no tolerance policy. Imagine an injured worker being prescribed medicinal marijuana by his physician as part of his treatment. Can his employer validly terminate him? What will the Supreme Court say on this? That is to be determined. Meanwhile LexisNexis published an article on this case so you can read it here. Given the legalization of marijuana so its use is permitted, even recreational use, will employers be allowed to terminate you even where you use it after hours with no impact on your employee performance? All I can say is stay tuned for the answer come 2015. By the way LexisNexis asked for my comments on the case so they are included in the article.

Court of Appeals case on Firefighter coverage

On May 8th, 2014 the Colorado Court of Appeals issued a decision involving a firefighter

case. The claimant developed leukemia with an onset in November 2009. There is a statutory presumption that certain cancers arising within 5 years of firefighting service are covered or compensable. The city (Denver) defended by asserting it was not within 5 years of service by alleging they hired him in February 2005. The court affirmed the decision in favor of the firefighter by indicating that there was sufficient time as a firefighter. He had over 5 years of service (adding time as a volunteer and probationary fireman). However the city asserted it should only count the actual time firefighting. The court reasoned that few people would qualify for the coverage under that view. A firefighters entire time of service should be counted. Additionally Denver tried to assert it had a right to define "firefighter" as it sees fit. The court reasoned that firefighter coverage under the statute is a matter of statewide concern and not subject to any local city definition. Please refer to the actual case itself which you can read here.

Apex Court of Appeals case on worsening

The Apex case was just published on March 13, 2014. It actually was originally decided in January but the court decided to publish it now. When published the case applies to all not just the parties. It can be cited as precedent in legal research. The case involves worsening. The claimant sustained a shoulder injury. Initially he was given no work restrictions but he was also terminated from his job. Apparently for pain he had taken a pain pill from his brother. Unfortunately his employer had a no tolerance policy and when discovered it resulted in his termination. Several days later he returned to the authorized physician who noted his pain and took him off work. Thereafter the claimant sought temporary benefits and asserted his condition had worsened enough to be entitled to temporary benefits. With his termination for cause he had to show a worsening to receive such benefits. So the case involved the issue of worsening. Now most of us would believe that going from a work status to a no work status is a worsening. However the court concluded that this fact alone does not establish a worsening. The court indicated the physician had not documented a worsening. Of course being now unable to work seems to be a worsening. Functionally going from work to no work is significant to me but that is just my view. Whether this case will be appealed further I do not know but as of now the rule is that increased work restrictions alone are not sufficient to establish a worsening. Read the case for the perspective of the court.

Video Presentations of Recent Cases

I really like that the Division has a page devoted to video presentations which discuss recent cases. This has been done monthly for quite a while. Many attorneys enjoy the monthly live presentation but these cases are then posted on a web page so anyone can read and listen to a review about the cases. Not every case is reviewed just those deemed significant but I have found this process to be very educational. In any event to gain some insight about what issues are being heard anyone can access this page and listen to the monthly presentation. Often these cases contain cutting edge issues in the workers comp field in Colorado. After all a case may be quite complex and listening to a review or analysis gives you a good sense or perspective about the case.

Unexplained Falls at work...the Rodriguez Supreme Court case

This week the Colorado Supreme Court in Rodriguez affirmed the lower court decision that the claimant had a compensable work injury. I reported the earlier decision by the lower court on August 20, 2012. In this case the claimant had an unexplained fall at work. But then the insurer admitted coverage and only later sought to amend or change that to a denial. The lower court held that the burden to prove it was not caused by work activities was on the insurer and when all they could show was that it was unexplained then they failed to carry their burden. The insurer appealed and this week the Supreme Court issued its decision. What impresses me most about the case is that the court actually had different reasoning then the lower court. It essentially concluded that an unexplained fall at work is compensable in all circumstances. It decided an unexplained fall is not caused by an employment related risk (like a slippery fall or dangerous condition) and it is not a personal or idiopathic risk (caused by personal health issues). It then carved out a new risk, a neutral risk. Quoting from the decision: "Because Rodriguez’s fall would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of her employment -- namely, walking to her office during her work day -- placed her on the stairs where she fell, her injury “arose out of” employment and is compensable." For claimants this is a great decision. We were always worried that falls without any explanation might be tough to attribute to work activities. Now falls shall be compensable unless they are because of personal health factors under this "but for" test. At least that's my view of the case. There was a dissent who said the majority by its decision significantly expands the scope of workers compensation coverage in Colorado. To me I like the decision. The insurance side will always try to attribute injuries to unrelated things if it can. Claimants might then have to try obtain evidence to support them. But insurers have the resources to obtain medical experts and a claimant may not consider that a fair fight. In any event this case is very interesting to read as it discusses several types of injuries. It is an exciting case in the field.

Video Replay of Monthly Reviews of Important Cases

The Division has posted a link to the video replays of case reviews presented once a month to interested attorneys. I would say that posting it as available to the public means you can view the video of the month and even read the cases. While

there is a short delay in posting the materials still it is nice to have it available for your reading and hearing. These are current cases and involve an interesting issue or set of facts. Even a non lawyer may access this material. If you are curious about what's going on in workers compensation or see where a case may be similar to your case then listen to the review by a presenter Administrative Law Judge in what I call the prehearing unit. Judge Eley is excellent in reviewing each case in his monthly Brown Bag seminar. While he selects the cases he deems most interesting I know that he has been doing this for years and years. Years ago as an attorney he published a monthly review. I fondly remember that publication and used the case reviews in my practice. Now he continues his effort to present current cases that are worth learning about. These cases can be presented in another case as supporting a point of view. So they can be useful in two ways. First they show us the current types of cases coming up on appeal and second they can even be used in another case to persuade a judge that you are on the right side. A judge will often rely on an earlier case that is presented to him as relevant to an issue. So these video replays along with all of the actual cases can be quite useful. Many attorneys attend or listen to them to stay updated on the latest issues being decided. In any event the Division on its page sets forth for all to see and hear several months of the video replays of important cases. Often it is fascinating to listen to the review by Judge Eley. Workers compensation can seem like a dull subject but it is filled with interesting people and cases. I like to see what arguments are being presented by Respondents in these cases when they appeal. I enjoy novel arguments no matter who makes them though I consider myself decisively on the claimants side.

Court of Appeals case on travel expenses

In a recent case the Colorado Court of Appeals decided in the Winter case to

address mileage and travel expenses. The claimant was from Trinidad but had to travel to Vail for authorized treatment. At first the claimant was advanced the cost of travel, hotel and meals. However after the third visit the insurer advanced only the travel mileage and not hotel or meals. The claimant advised the insurer he could not afford this unless it was advanced. The matter went to a hearing where the judge ruled against the claimant. This was appealed an eventually reached the Court of Appeals. The court affirmed the decision. Prepayment of hotel and meals is not a requirement even where this can lead to a harsh result. The court did note the claimant was able to use a credit card in this case and did get reimbursed within 30 days but suggested the Division of Workers Compensation may wish to address that issue. Usually claimants are treated locally but I have had cases where travel was necessary. Most claimants can use a credit card but some are quite poor. They may not have such a card or other resources so it would be helpful to have the Division address this for those cases as suggested by the court. Many times the benefits provided in a workers compensation case are barely enough to cover living expenses and asking the claimant to pay travel expenses and wait for reimbursement is expecting a lot. Anyway this case reviews all this and the court decision is the current law on the subject.

Recent ALJ Decisions

At the local level Colorado posts perhaps all of the decisions by its administrative judges. The decisions for May 2013 are posted here. I went through these decisions and you can too. What I noticed is that many of them concern either compensability (coverage) or medical issues. Claimants often lost at these hearings. My view is that the claimant in such matters will often need a medical expert or two to help with his or her case. Insurers have ready access to known doctors who tend to support the insurer side of things. In a tough case my experience has been that Respondents will spend thousands to win. Winning means the claimant loses...either he loses it all or he loses on an issue that is quite important like his need for surgery. These experts are very good at justifying their position and at knocking down the medical opinions of others more supportive of the claimant. Did you get hurt at work? Nah it was preexisting. Or it could not have happened with the claimants work activities. Need surgery...well not really. The other sides medical experts are clever and often sway the judge. A claimant may not have the ability to hire his own experts to fight back. If left to the existing medical reports issued by the treating doctors who are often selected by the insurer a claimant may not have a chance. My point is that to have a fair fight a claimant may need expert help. The system does not pay for that or even have a fund to assist claimants. Over the years I've seen this problem increase. In any event reading the decisions makes you aware of the problem. It can also make you aware of the doctors involved in workers compensation cases from treating doctors to experts. For insight I'd encourage you to read the cases. Common sense may tell you that work activities caused or aggravated your condition but the insurer may have evidence that threatens your case. It can come in the form of a doctor or two who are hired to dispute your claim. So be ready because at a hearing you should expect significant opposition.