From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Irrig. Motor v. Ind. Com

Colorado Court of Appeals. Division I
Dec 7, 1971
30 Colo. App. 289 (Colo. App. 1971)

Summary

In Irrigation Motor Pump Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 30 Colo. App. 289, 494 P.2d 144 (1971), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that where a workmen's compensation claimant's petition to reopen was received before time for review had expired, the statute of limitations was tolled pending final determination denying the petition, and the Industrial Commission had jurisdiction when it entered an order on the petition, notwithstanding that the order was entered after expiration of time for review. Irrigation Motor Pump Co., 494 P.2d at 145.

Summary of this case from Hutchins v. Labor Indus

Opinion

No. 71-299

Decided December 7, 1971. Rehearing denied December 28, 1971. Certiorari granted March 13, 1972.

Following denial of petition to reopen workmen's compensation claim, second petition to reopen was filed. Employer and insurer appealed Industrial Commission's supplemental order reopening claim.

Order Reversed

1. WORKERS' COMPENSATIONPetition to Reopen — Tolled — Statute of Limitation — No Petition to Review — 15-day Limit — Further Action Precluded. Where date of work related accident was April 1, 1964, and first petition to reopen was filed March 27, 1970, the six-year statute of limitations was tolled pending determination of that petition; however, following denial of that petition on April 10, 1970, no petition to review or request for further time was filed within the 15-day statutory limit; and thus the statute of limitations precluded further action on the claim after April 25, 1970.

2. Admission of Liability Approved — Payment Made — Constitutes Award — — Continuing Jurisdiction — Not Retained. Although no formal award of workmen's compensation benefits was ever ordered by the Industrial Commission, its approval of the admission of liability and payment of benefits in May 1964 constituted an award for all intents and purposes, and thus the Commission did not retain continuing jurisdiction of the matter after that date.

Review of Order from the Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado

Duane O. Littel, Peter F. Jones, for petitioners.

Doty, Johnson Summers, for respondent Alan James.

Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, John P. Moore, Deputy, Peter L. Dye, Assistant, for respondents Industrial Commission of Colorado and The Director of Industrial Commission of Colorado.


This is a workmen's compensation case on appeal from the Industrial Commission of Colorado. On April 1, 1964, the claimant, Alan James, injured his left eye while employed by Irrigation Motor and Pump Company. Aetna Insurance Company filed a general admission of liability and mailed its full payment of compensation on May 5, 1964. The admission of liability was approved by the Commission on May 8, 1964.

On March 27, 1970, claimant petitioned to reopen, based upon a change in physical condition. This petition, supported by a medical report, was denied on April 10, 1970, and no petition to review was filed thereafter. A second petition to reopen was filed on June 3, 1970. A supplemental order declared the order of April 10, 1970, null and void, and reopened the case. This order, adopted by the Commission as its final award, is the basis of this appeal.

The issue is whether the Commission exceeded its authority in ordering the case reopened on July 10, 1970. Petitioners assert the Commission exceeded its authority because the statute of limitations had run. We agree and reverse.

1969 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 81-14-19, provides:

"Upon his own motion on the ground of error, mistake, or change in condition, the director, at any time within six years from the date of accident in cases where no compensation has been paid, or at any time within two years after the date last payment becomes due and payable or within six years from the date of accident, whichever is longer, in cases where compensation has been paid, and after notice of hearing to the parties interested, may review any award. . . ."

Since no compensation payments were due after 1964, the longer period is six years from the date of the accident, April 1, 1964. Therefore, the time for review expired on April 1, 1970.

[1] The Commission had jurisdiction when it entered its order of April 10, 1970. Since claimant's petition to reopen was received before April 1, 1970, the statute was tolled pending final determination of the petition. Mascitelli v. Giuliano Sons Coal Co., 157 Colo. 240, 402 P.2d 192. However, no petition to review or request for further time was filed within the 15-day statutory limit, and thus the statute of limitations precluded further action on this case after April 25, 1970.

[2] Since no formal award was ever ordered by the Commission, respondents contend the case was never closed, and, therefore, the Commission retained continuing jurisdiction.

This issue was decided in Harlan v. Industrial Commission, 167 Colo. 413, 447 P.2d 1009, where the Supreme Court stated:

"The action which the Commission took when it approved the Fund's admission of general liability . . . together with the payment to the claimant of benefits constituted an award for all intents and purposes under the statute."

In the instant case, approval of the admission of liability and payment of benefits were both made in May 1964.

The order of the Commission is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Commission with directions to deny the petition to reopen.

JUDGE DUFFORD and JUDGE PIERCE concur.


Summaries of

Irrig. Motor v. Ind. Com

Colorado Court of Appeals. Division I
Dec 7, 1971
30 Colo. App. 289 (Colo. App. 1971)

In Irrigation Motor Pump Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 30 Colo. App. 289, 494 P.2d 144 (1971), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that where a workmen's compensation claimant's petition to reopen was received before time for review had expired, the statute of limitations was tolled pending final determination denying the petition, and the Industrial Commission had jurisdiction when it entered an order on the petition, notwithstanding that the order was entered after expiration of time for review. Irrigation Motor Pump Co., 494 P.2d at 145.

Summary of this case from Hutchins v. Labor Indus
Case details for

Irrig. Motor v. Ind. Com

Case Details

Full title:Irrigation Motor and Pump Company, Inc. and Aetna Insurance Company v…

Court:Colorado Court of Appeals. Division I

Date published: Dec 7, 1971

Citations

30 Colo. App. 289 (Colo. App. 1971)
494 P.2d 144

Citing Cases

James v. Irrig. Motor Pump

Decided December 4, 1972. Rehearing denied December 26, 1972. Workmen's compensation case for review of a…

Hutchins v. Labor Indus

However, in general, the running of the statute of limitations is not tolled by the pendency of an appeal…