Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2014/05/12/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:02:47+00:00

Document:
On Monday, May 12, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court issued three published opinions.
Industrial Claim Appeals Office v. Softrock Geological Services, Inc.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Visible Voices, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office on Thursday, May 8, 2014.
Visible Voices, Inc. (Visible) provides “computer-assisted realtime translation” (CART) services under contracts with clients. It supplies clients with “CART providers, or captionists, who perform live word-for-word speech-to-text translation for the deaf and hearing impaired.” Visible entered into agreements with thirteen individuals (workers) to provide CART services to Visible’s clients as independent contractors.
The Division of Employment and Training (Division) issued a liability determination, concluding that the workers’ services for Visible amounted to covered employment and that Visible was required to pay unemployment compensation taxes on those services. On appeal, a hearing officer determined the workers were independent contractors. The Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) upheld the hearing officer’s determination that the workers were free from Visible’s control and direction, but remanded for further findings as to whether the workers were customarily engaged in an independent trade or business providing CART-related services.
On remand, a different hearing officer affirmed the original determination. The (Panel) overturned this hearing officer’s decision as to eleven of the thirteen workers, finding that these workers were not customarily engaged in independent businesses related to the CART services and therefore were engaged in covered employment. Visible appealed.
CRS § 8-70-115(1)(b) defines covered employment for unemployment tax liability purposes. To establish that a worker is customarily engaged in an independent trade or business related to the services performed, a putative employer must show that the worker is engaged in a separate business venture, other than the provision of services for the putative employer.
The Court of Appeals concluded that a multi-factor approach to determining whether a worker is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession or business, as enunciated in Softrock Geological Services, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 2012 COA 97, ¶ 10 (cert. granted March 25, 2013), is the standard to be applied. In Softrock, the Panel focused almost exclusively on whether the workers performed CART services for others besides Visible.
The Court affirmed the portion of the Panel’s order determining that two of the thirteen workers were independent contractors and not in covered employment with Visible. However, the Court found that evidence in the record supported the hearing officer’s determination that the eleven workers in question were customarily engaged in independent businesses related to the services provided by Visible. Accordingly, the remainder of the order was set aside and remanded with instructions to reinstate the hearing officer’s determination that the remaining eleven workers were also not in covered employment with Visible.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in City & County of Denver v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office on Thursday, May 8, 2014.
Claimant is a first-grade firefighter for the Denver Fire Department. He was hired by Denver on October 1, 2004. Before taking his oath of office as a firefighter in February 2005, claimant completed a seventeen-week course at the Rocky Mountain Fire Academy as a probationary firefighter for Denver. Claimant also garnered four years’ experience as a volunteer firefighter and emergency medical technician for the Elbert Fire Protection District before entering the fire academy. On February 12, 2010, claimant was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia. He filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits under CRS § 8-41-209 for his cancer treatments, invoking the statute’s presumption that certain cancers contracted by firefighters with five or more years of service are compensable occupational diseases. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found in favor of claimant and the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) agreed. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
On appeal, Denver contended that the ALJ and Panel misinterpreted CRS § 8-41-209(1) by including in the length of claimant’s “employment as a firefighter” both (a) the entire time claimant served as volunteer firefighter and (b) his time training at the fire academy. It argued that it did not “employ” claimant as a firefighter, within the meaning of § 8-41-209(1), until he took his oath of office as a firefighter in February 2005. However, the definition of “employee” set out in the Workers’ Compensation Act expressly includes “all members of volunteer fire departments.” By including volunteer firefighters in the definition of “employee,” the legislature made clear its intent that injuries sustained by volunteer firefighters in the course and scope of their volunteer work be compensable under the Act. Accordingly, the Panel did not err in finding that length of firefighting service under § 8-41-209 should begin to run from the date on which a volunteer firefighter fights his or her first actual or training fire, including time spent at the fire academy.
Denver also contended that its status as a home rule municipality gives it the right and authority to define “firefighter” and “probationary firefighter” as it sees fit. The scope of “employment as a firefighter” under the firefighter cancer presumption statute and workers’ compensation benefits are considered a matter of state-wide concern, which a home rule municipality may not supersede.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Rhea on Thursday, May 8, 2014.
Theft—Conspiracy to Commit Theft—Attempt to Influence a Public Official—Multiplicitous Charges—Double Jeopardy—Due Process—Merger—Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Defendant was charged with ten counts of theft, ten counts of conspiracy to commit theft, and three counts of attempting to influence a public official. These charges arose from approximately $250,000 in road work for which defendant’s company invoiced Adams County and was paid, but allegedly did not perform.
On appeal, defendant contended that allowing multiplicitous charges to go before the jury violated the double jeopardy prohibition and his due process right to a fair trial. Here, the trial court recognized that sentencing defendant on ten counts of the theft statute and on ten counts of conspiracy to commit theft for acts within the same six-month period would have violated the double jeopardy prohibition. Nevertheless, the prosecution charged defendant with and the jury convicted him on ten theft counts and ten related conspiracy counts, all of which were based on acts that occurred within a six-month period. Thus, these twenty charges and convictions were multiplicitous. However, the double jeopardy prohibition does not preclude a trial court from allowing multiplicitous charges to go before a jury. Any prejudice can be cured by merging multiplicitous convictions. Also, because the same evidence could have been presented to the jury, which convicted defendant on all counts, no due process violation occurred.
Defendant next contended that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his post-trial motion based on prosecutorial misconduct. The Court of Appeals disagreed with this contention. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Stroud on Thursday, May 8, 2014.
Child Abuse—Expert Witness Funding—Indigency—“Admission”—Dependency and Neglect Testimony—Effective Representation—Consecutive Sentences—Presentence Confinement Credit.
This appeal arises from allegations of child abuse concerning defendant’s 11-week-old daughter, R.S., and his stepchildren, C.H. and S.H. The judgment was affirmed.
On appeal, Stroud contended that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for funds to hire an expert. Here, Stroud was eligible for a court-funded expert because he was indigent and represented by a private attorney who began representing him on a pro bono basis. Thus, the trial court should have provided him expert witness funding without an initial determination of indigency by the Public Defender’s Office. Although the trial court abused its discretion, however, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, because Stroud did not establish that an expert was necessary and there was overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
Stroud also contended that the trial court erroneously admitted his testimony from a previous dependency and neglect case. An “admission” under CRS § 19-3-207(3) only refers to a parent’s formal admission or denial of the allegations in a petition. It does not preclude admissions made during testimony in a dependency and neglect case in a subsequent criminal case. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting Stroud’s testimony from his dependency and neglect case.
Next, Stroud argued that his convictions for child abuse should have been reversed because his trial counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest that denied him effective assistance of counsel. Here, the absence of expert testimony did not undermine defense counsel’s representation. Further, the record refutes Stroud’s argument that his trial counsel did not vigorously contest the prosecution’s evidence. Accordingly, there was no actual conflict of interest that adversely affected defense counsel’s performance.
Finally, Stroud contended that the trial court did not make specific findings of fact to justify its imposition of consecutive sentences for his misdemeanor and felony convictions, and that the trial court erroneously denied him presentence confinement credit. Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences after considering the nature of the offense, Stroud’s character and rehabilitative potential, his respect for the law, the deterrence of crime, and protection of the public. Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in applying Stroud’s credit for presentence confinement to his misdemeanor sentence rather than his felony sentence.
On Friday, May 9, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and eight unpublished opinions.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 § 8
 § 8
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 § 19