The claimant operated a front-loader truck for Waste Management of Colorado (Employer). The claimant alleged that in July 2020, he was injured while stepping down from his truck.
Although the claimant’s leg hurt and his elbow was bruised, he told Employer that he did not believe he was seriously injured. The claimant declined medical treatment and signed a medical treatment refusal form. Later that day, Employer reported the claimant’s injury to its insurer, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America (Respondents). The claimant alleged a compensable injury of September 7, 2020. Respondents denied liability and filed as Notice of Contest on January 27, 2021.
The claimant kept working for six months after the accident. Eventually, Respondents moved to close the claimant’s claim for lack of prosecution under Rule 7-1(C) of the Workers’ Compensation Rules of Procedure, which authorizes the Director to close a claim “[w]hen no activity in furtherance of prosecution has occurred in a claim for a period of at least 6 months. Three days later, the claimant filed an application for hearing, identifying the issues for hearing as temporary total disability, temporary partial disability, and penalties. The claimant did not include compensability as an issue, nor did he set the matter for a hearing.
ON AUGUST 20, 2021
The Director issues a show cause order requiring the claimant to “set and attend a hearing” before the OAC within 120 days, obtain an order extending such deadline or “otherwise resolve this order.” The hearing was initially scheduled for December 17, 2021, but was continued several times before finally being set on July 15, 2022.
ON JUNE 15, 2022
Respondents filed a motion to vacate the claimant’s upcoming July 15th hearing, strike the claimant’s hearing application, and dismiss the claimant’s claim with prejudice (the motion to dismiss). Respondents noted that the claimant had failed to attend scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) despite multiple PALJ orders compelling him to do so. Respondents noted that the claimant’s actions were willful violations of the PALJ’s orders and thus the only appropriate remedy was dismissal with prejudice.
ON JULY 6
ALJ Lavato issued an order denying Respondents’ request to strike the claimant’s application but granting their request to vacate the July 15 hearing. The claimant finally attended an IME in August 2022, and a new hearing was set for August 19, 2022. The parties attempted to settle the matter but ultimately this was unsuccessful.
ON AUGUST 23
Respondents filed a motion with the Division for “Reconsideration Dismissal with Prejudice”. They referenced the motion to dismiss and renewed their request that the claimant’s claim be dismissed or closed. The claimant responded on September 6. On September 9, the Director issued an order granting Respondents’ August 2, 2021, motion to close the claim, subject to the reopening provisions in section 8-43-303, C.R.S. 2025. The Director noted the claimant’s failure to comply with the show cause order.
Nothing occurred in the claimant’s case for two years. In October 2024, the claimant’s counsel wrote a letter to the Director, pointing out that he had filed a petition to review the case “long ago”. Ultimately, the Division confirmed receipt of the claimant’s petition to review and allowed him twenty days to file a supporting brief. Respondents never challenged the Director’s acceptance of the claimant’s untimely petition. Both parties filed briefs in early 2025.
ON MARCH 10, 2025
The Director issued a supplemental order stating that “the Director’s September 9, 2022, Order Granting Motion to Close Claim stands, subject to the reopening provisions in section 8-43-303, C.R.S. 2025.”
ON JUNE 24, 2025
The claimant ultimately appealed the Director’s supplemental order. On June 24, 2025, the Panel said that, although the Director had issued a certificate and transmittal of complete record (transmittal notice) to the Panel on April 22, 2025, the Panel did not review the matter due to “an unintentional and unfortunate clerical error” that “was not discovered until June 23, 2025.” The panel concluded that, under section 8-43-301(11), it lost the authority to decide the appeal on June 23, 2025 – sixty days after the date of transmittal.
Additionally, the Panel noted it was unaware of any appellate decision granting it authority to extend the statutory deadline. The claimant appealed this order.
The claimant challenged the Panel’s refusal to act, the sufficiency of the Director’s findings, the meaning of “activity” under the workers’ compensation rules, alleged due process/equal protection violations, Respondents’ alleged misconduct, and whether the record supported the Panel’s action.
The Court of Appeals held it had jurisdiction because, under section 8-43-301(11), the Director’s order became the Panel’s order when the Panel failed to act within 60 days, and the claimant timely sought judicial review. The Court concluded that the Panel correctly determined it lost authority to decide the merits once the 60-day deadline expired; the Director’s order therefore became the Panel’s order by operation of statute.
The Director did not abuse his discretion in closing the claim because the claimant failed to engage in “activity in furtherance of prosecution.” Merely filing applications for hearing was not enough, and the claimant did not attend the required OAC hearing or seek a proper extension.
The court noted that the claimant’s property interest only arises after the claimant is awarded benefits or liability for benefits is admitted. Thus, the Court rejected the claimant’s due process argument because he had no protected property interest in benefit, liability was contested and no benefits had been awarded. Additionally, the court stated that the claimant received notice of Respondents’ motion to close and had an opportunity to respond to it. The claimant also received Respondents’ motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration, as well as all the Director’s orders. Therefore, the Court discerned there were no due process violations in this case.
The Court rejected the claimant’s remaining undeveloped arguments, including unclean hands, inadequate findings, and “rubber stamping.” The Court noted that the claimant’s counsel misquoted cases. For example, the claimant quoted Pinkstaff v. Black and Decker (U.S.) Inc., 211 P.3d 698, 709 (Colo. 2009), for the following proposition: “While the governmental interest regarding Motions to Close pursuant to WCRP 7-1 (C) is to avoid delay, … it should not be used to deny a party his day in Court.” The Court noted that Pinkstaff is not a workers’ compensation case, it does not contain the quoted text, and it does not cite the WCRP. The court warned that future false quotations, including AI-generated ones, may result in sanctions.
Aragorn v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, No. 25CA1303 (Colo. Ct. App. 2026)
Want to know more? Contact Joshua Dillard at jdillard@pollartmiller.com
