CO Code § 8-43-203 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 8 - Labor and Industry|Article 43 - Procedure|Part 2 - Settlement and Hearing Procedures|§ 8-43-203. Notice Concerning Liability - Notice to Claimants - Notice of Rights and Claims Process - Rules

     The employer or, if insured, the employer's insurance carrier shall notify in writing the division and the injured employee or, if deceased, the decedent's dependents within twenty days after a report is, or should have been, filed with the division pursuant to section 8-43-101, whether liability is admitted or contested; except that, for the purpose of this section, any knowledge on the part of the employer, if insured, is not knowledge on the part of the insurance carrier. The employer or the employer's insurance carrier may notify the division electronically. Unless exempted by the director pursuant to rule because of a small number of filings or a showing of financial hardship, beginning July 1, 2006, all notices of contest shall be filed electronically. The rejection of an electronically filed notice by the division for a technical error shall not affect the validity of the notice to the claimant. If the insurance carrier or self-insured employer denies liability for the claim, the claimant may request an expedited hearing on the issue of compensability if the application therefor is filed within forty-five days after the date of mailing of the notice of contest. The director shall set any such expedited matter for hearing within sixty days after the date of the application, when the issue is liability for the disease or injury. The time schedule for such an expedited hearing is subject to the extensions set forth in section 8-43-209. If a claimant elects not to request an expedited hearing pursuant to this subsection (1), the time schedule for hearing the matter shall be as set forth in section 8-43-209.    The written notice given pursuant to this subsection (1) shall include a specific reference to the claimant's obligations under section 8-42-113.5.    The employer or, if insured, the employer's insurance carrier may not withdraw an initial admission of liability on the issue of compensability filed pursuant to this subsection (1) if two years or more have elapsed since the date the initial admission of liability was filed with the division, except in cases of fraud. (1.5) (Deleted by amendment, L. 92, p. 1825 , § 4, effective April 29, 1992.)         If such notice is not filed as provided in subsection (1) of this section, the employer or, if insured, the employer's insurance carrier, as the case may be, may become liable to the claimant, if the claimant is successful on the claim for compensation, for up to one day's compensation for each day's failure to so notify; except that the employer or, if insured, the employer's insurance carrier shall not be liable for more than the aggregate amount of three hundred sixty-five days' compensation for failure to timely admit or deny liability. Fifty percent of any penalty paid pursuant to this subsection (2) shall be paid to the subsequent injury fund, created in section 8-46-101, and fifty percent to the claimant.      If the employer or, if insured, the employer's insurance carrier admits liability, such notice shall specify the amount of compensation to be paid, to whom compensation will be paid, the period for which compensation will be paid, and the disability for which compensation will be paid, and payment thereon shall be made immediately. (b) (I) If the employer or, if insured, the employer's insurance carrier admits liability, such notice shall specify the amount of compensation to be paid, to whom compensation will be paid, the period for which compensation will be paid, and the disability for which compensation will be paid, and payment thereon shall be made immediately.    (A) An admission of liability for final payment of compensation must include a statement that this is the final admission by the workers' compensation insurance carrier in the case, that the claimant may contest this admission if the claimant feels entitled to more compensation, to whom the claimant should provide written objection, and notice to the claimant that the case will be automatically closed as to the issues admitted in the final admission if the claimant does not, within thirty days after the date of the final admission, contest the final admission in writing and request a hearing on any disputed issues that are ripe for hearing, including the selection of an independent medical examiner pursuant to section 8-42-107.2 if an independent medical examination has not already been conducted. If an independent medical examination is requested pursuant to section 8-42-107.2, the claimant is not required to file a request for hearing on disputed issues that are ripe for hearing until the division's independent medical examination process is terminated for any reason. Any issue for which a hearing or an application for a hearing is pending at the time that the final admission of liability is filed shall proceed to the hearing without the need for the applicant to refile an application for hearing on the issue. This information must also be included in the admission of liability for final payment of compensation. The respondents have twenty days after the date of mailing of the notice from the division of the receipt of the IME's report to file an admission or to file an application for hearing. The claimant has thirty days after the date respondents file the admission or application for hearing to file an application for hearing, or a response to the respondents' application for hearing, as applicable, on any disputed issues that are ripe for hearing. The revised final admission, if any, must contain the statement required by this subparagraph (II), and the provisions relating to contesting the revised final admission apply. When the final admission is predicated upon medical reports, the reports must accompany the final admission.       No penalty may be assessed under this subsection (2) for failure to timely admit or deny liability if a request for such penalty is filed more than seven years after the alleged violation. The division shall retain original claim records filed with the division for at least seven years after closure of the case. Seven years after a case is closed, the records may only be used for reopening a settlement on the grounds of fraud or mutual mistake of material fact.    Once a case is closed pursuant to this subsection (2), the issues closed may only be reopened pursuant to section 8-43-303. Upon proper showing in writing made within said times fixed therefor, the director may extend the time for filing such admission of liability or notice of contest, but not exceeding ten days at any one time. Hearings may be set to determine any matter, but, if any liability is admitted, payments shall continue according to admitted liability.       In addition to any other notice required by this section, at the time that the employer or, if insured, the employer's insurance carrier provides the notice required by subsection (1) of this section, the employer or insurance carrier shall provide to the claimant a brochure written in easily understood language, in a form developed by the director after consultation with employers, insurance carriers, and representatives of injured workers, describing the claims process and informing the claimant of the claimant's rights. If the claimant has previously authorized the employer or, if insured, the employer's insurance carrier to communicate with the claimant through electronic transmission, the brochure may be sent to the claimant electronically. The brochure shall, at a minimum, contain the following information:   Who the claimant may contact with questions concerning the claim, the claims process, and assistance with the claim, including:   The insurance carrier or employer;    The division and the website for the division;    The office of administrative courts and the website for the office; and    An attorney hired at the expense of the claimant;       The claimant's right to receive medical care for work-related injuries or occupational diseases paid for by the employer or the employer's insurance carrier including:   That most claimants have a right to choose from a list of at least two different doctors;    That most claimants have a right to change doctors one time within ninety days after the injury and all claimants have the right to request a change of doctor at other times under certain other circumstances;    The claimant's doctor's right to refer the claimant to other medical providers and specialists to provide the reasonable and necessary medical care that the claimant's work-related injuries or illness require;    The claimant's right to discuss with his or her doctor who should be present during a claimant's medical appointment, and the right to refuse to have a nurse case manager employed on the claimant's claim present at the claimant's medical appointment;    The claimant's right to see and have copies of all of the claimant's medical records related to the medical care the claimant received for his or her work-related injury or illness;    The claimant's right to seek medical care and medical opinions about the claimant's work-related injury at the claimant's own expense;    The claimant's right to a medical examination by a doctor chosen by the claimant or by the division at the claimant's expense;    The claimant's right to a permanent impairment evaluation after the claimant's treating doctors determine that the claimant has reached maximum medical improvement; and    The claimant's right to be informed whether medical care after maximum medical improvement will be provided and to receive reasonable continued medical care if it is necessary to maintain maximum medical improvement;       A description of the claimant's right to receive benefit payments, including the claimant's right to receive:   Wage replacement payments in the form of temporary total disability payments or temporary partial disability payments;    Permanent impairment benefits if the claimant is left with a permanent impairment as a result of a work-related injury or disease;    Disfigurement payments for permanent scarring or disfigurement caused by the claimant's work-related injury or surgery required because of the claimant's work-related injury; and    Mileage expense reimbursement for travel to and from work-related medical care and to and from pharmacies to obtain medical prescriptions for work-related medical care. The description of the right to receive mileage expense reimbursement must include information concerning the claimant's requirement to submit a request for reimbursement to the employer or employer's insurance carrier no later than one hundred twenty days after the expense is incurred pursuant to section 8-42-101 (7) and an example of a mileage reimbursement form.       A description of how the claims process works, including:   The claimant's right to file a claim for workers' compensation with the division within two years after the date of the claimant's injury or occupational disease;    The claimant's right to receive a general admission of liability or notice of contest once the claim has been properly reported to the division;    The claimant's right to verify that the claimant's average weekly wage payments for temporary total disability have been properly calculated by the claimant's employer or the employer's insurance carrier;    The claimant's right to prehearings and hearings on disputed issues;    The claimant's right to present evidence, testify, introduce medical and other records, present witnesses, and make arguments at any hearing;    The claimant's right to object to and request a hearing on any final admission of liability within thirty days after the mailing of the admission in order to retain certain rights;    The claimant's right to challenge a finding of an impairment rating or maximum medical improvement in a final admission of liability within thirty days after the mailing of the admission in order to retain certain rights;    The claimant's right to pursue penalties for violations of the law including late payment of benefits or improper refusal to pay benefits;    The claimant's right, subject to certain requirements, to reopen a claim within six years after the date of the injury or illness or within two years after the date of the last receipt of medical or wage benefits; and    A description of other rights conferred upon a claimant pursuant to law or rule.          Within fifteen days after the mailing of a written request for a copy of the claim file, the employer or, if insured, the employer's insurance carrier or third-party administrator shall provide to the claimant or his or her representative a complete copy of the claim file that includes all medical records, pleadings, correspondence, investigation files, investigation reports, witness statements, information addressing designation of the authorized treating physician, and wage and fringe benefit information for the twelve months leading up to the date of injury and thereafter, regardless of the format. If a privilege or other protection is claimed for any materials, the materials must be detailed in an accompanying privilege log.     History. Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 501, § 1, effective July 1. L. 91: (1.5) added, p. 1316, § 24, effective July 1. L. 92: (1) and (1.5) amended, p. 1825, § 4, effective April 29. L. 96: (2) amended, p. 830, § 1, effective July 1. L. 97: (1) amended, p. 113, § 3, effective July 1. L. 98: (2)(b) amended, p. 1431, § 3, effective August 5. L. 2001: (2)(b)(II) amended, p. 49, § 1, effective March 11. L. 2003: (2)(b)(II) amended, p. 1956, § 1, effective May 22; (1)(a) amended, p. 837, § 2, effective August 6. L. 2005: (1)(a) amended, p. 200, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2009: (2)(b)(II) amended,(SB 09-168), ch. 184, p. 807, § 4, effective August 5. L. 2010: (2)(b)(II) amended,(SB 10-163), ch. 66, p. 232, § 4, effective March 31; (3) added,(HB 10-1038), ch. 275, p. 1258, § 1, effective May 26. L. 2013: (4) added,(SB 13-285), ch. 301, p. 1594, § 4, effective July 1; (2)(b)(II)(A) amended,(SB 13-249), ch. 267, p.1409, § 2, effective August 7. L. 2016: (1)(a) amended,(SB 16-217), ch. 272, p. 1128, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2021: (1)(c) added and IP(3) and (3)(c)(IV) amended,(HB 21-1050), ch. 384, p. 2572, § 7, effective September 7.    Editor's note:    This section is similar to former § 8-53-102 as it existed prior to 1990.      Section 13(2)(c) of chapter 384 (HB 21-1050), Session Laws of Colorado 2021, provides that the act adding subsection (1)(c) applies to initial admissions of liability on the issue of compensability filed on or after September 7, 2021. (2) (a) Section 13(2)(c) of chapter 384 (HB 21-1050), Session Laws of Colorado 2021, provides that the act adding subsection (1)(c) applies to initial admissions of liability on the issue of compensability filed on or after September 7, 2021.    Section 13(2)(a) of chapter 384 (HB 21-1050), Session Laws of Colorado 2021, provides that the act amending subsection (3)(c)(IV) applies to workers' compensation claims pending or filed on or after September 7, 2021.        Cross references:   For the legislative declaration in SB 16-217, see section 1 of chapter 272, Session Laws of Colorado 2016.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Update on Colorado Appellate Decisions in Workers' Compensation Law”, see 32 Colo. Law. 113 (Oct. 2003). For article, “Failed Claim Closure: The Effect of Crigger on Workers' Compensation”, see 44 Colo. Law. 47 (Jan. 2015).   Annotator's note. Since § 8-43-203 is similar to § 8-53-102 as it existed prior to the 1990 repeal and reenactment of the “Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado”, articles 40 to 47 of this title, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.   Section held to be constitutional. Eachus v. Cooper, 738 P.2d 383 (Colo. App. 1986).   Notice requirement. Notification by claimant that he was asserting his then current disability to be job-related was sufficient to trigger the notice requirement of this section. Gallegos v. Green Const. Co., 754 P.2d 1177 (Colo. App. 1987).   Subsection (2) directs that payments cannot be abrogated unilaterally. Vargo v. Indus. Comm'n, 626 P.2d 1164 (Colo. App. 1981); Snyder v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 942 P.2d 1337 (Colo. App. 1997).   Payments begun as result of admitted liability must continue until order is entered pursuant to a hearing. Vargo v. Indus. Comm'n, 626 P.2d 1164 (Colo. App. 1981); Snyder v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 942 P.2d 1337 (Colo. App. 1997); Pacesetter Corp. v. Collett, 33 P.3d 1230 (Colo. App. 2001).   Admission of liability for “closed” period not permitted. The insurer may not unilaterally terminate benefits without complying with § 8-42-105 (3) and other applicable statutes and rules governing the termination of benefits. Colo. Comp. Ins. Auth. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 18 P.3d 790 (Colo. App. 2000).   Retroactive withdrawals of admission of liability not permitted. There is no provision in subsection (2), or elsewhere in this section, which permits retroactive withdrawals of an admission of liability. Vargo v. Indus. Comm'n, 626 P.2d 1164 (Colo. App. 1981); Pacesetter Corp. v. Collett, 33 P.3d 1230 (Colo. App. 2001).   Admission based upon material false information declared void ab initio. Where the evidence supported the referee's finding that the claimant supplied materially false information upon which his employer and its insurer relied in filing an admission of liability, the referee was justified in declaring the admission void ab initio. Vargo v. Indus. Comm'n, 626 P.2d 1164 (Colo. App. 1981); Krause v. Artcraft Sign Co., 710 P.2d 480 (Colo. 1985); Pacesetter Corp. v. Collett, 33 P.3d 1230 (Colo. App. 2001).   Lack of causal connection may be asserted at any time. In a dispute over medical benefits that arises after the filing of a general admission of liability, an employer generally can assert, based on subsequent medical reports, that the claimant did not establish the threshold requirement of a direct causal relationship between the on-the-job injury and the need for medical treatment. Snyder v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 942 P.2d 1337 (Colo. App. 1997).   An employer is precluded from challenging the IME physician's finding that claimant was not at MMI, including the IME physician's finding regarding the cause of claimant's symptoms because employer failed either to admit or contest liability within 30 days of the IME physician's report as required by subsection (2)(b)(II). Leprino Foods Co. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 134 P.3d 475 (Colo. App. 2005).   Denial of withdrawal of admission of liability. Where an admission of liability is made by an insurance carrier and compensation paid thereunder for more than two years, there is no abuse of discretion in denying the withdrawal of such admission, where all the facts pertinent to the case were known to the carrier for more than two years, and there is no suggestion of fraud. Indus. Comm'n v. Johnson Pontiac, Inc., 140 Colo. 160 , 344 P.2d 186 (1959) (decided under former § 8-53-103 ).   Release obtained as a result of a mutual mistake of material fact may be set aside in a workmen's compensation case. Loper v. Indus. Comm'n, 648 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1982).   Successful claim requirement for recovery of penalties under subsection (2) is met by establishing the employer's liability, notwithstanding the fact that no additional compensation was payable as a result of that liability. Smith v. Myron Stratton Home, 676 P.2d 1196 (Colo. 1984); McManus v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 81 P.3d 1074 (Colo. App. 2003).   Claimant's receipt of benefits constitutes substantial compliance with the notice requirements of this section. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Boatwright, 749 P.2d 456 (Colo. App. 1987); Pacesetter Corp. v. Collett, 33 P.3d 1230 (Colo. App. 2001).   A final admission must be mailed to the claimant's home address unless he or she has designated another location. Bowlen v. Munford, 921 P.2d 59 (Colo. App. 1996).   Claimant's receipt of benefit checks that were not mailed to his home address did not provide him with constructive receipt of the final admissions. Bowlen v. Munford, 921 P.2d 59 (Colo. App. 1996).   Contest of admission of liability. If an admission of liability is contested by either party, the determination of the matter placed in issue is subject to determination by the administrative law judge at the adversary hearing. The admission is binding only until the controverted issue is determined after the hearing. HIJ Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Kim, 804 P.2d 250 (Colo. App. 1990).   Authority to modify erroneous admission. The administrative law judge's order providing for retroactive modification of employer's admission held incorrect. Since error in admission was caused by employer's own mistake in calculation of employee's average weekly wage, the order should apply to payments after the date of the order. HIJ Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Kim, 804 P.2d 250 (Colo. App. 1990).   Employer's knowledge of employee's injury should not be imparted to insurer for the purpose of the penalty imposed by this section since it would be impossible for the insurer, without actual notice of the injury, to admit or deny liability within 25 days as required by this section. State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Wilson, 736 P.2d 33 (Colo. 1987).   An employer's knowledge of the employee's injury may not be imputed to the insurance carrier. Campbell v. IBM Corp., 867 P.2d 77 (Colo. App. 1993).   When employer admits liability, it is obligated to pay accordingly. Williams v. Indus. Comm'n, 723 P.2d 749 (Colo. App. 1986); Cibola Constr. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 971 P.2d 666 (Colo. App. 1998).   Employer required to pay claimant the full amount specified in its final admission of liability (FAL) where the employer failed to expressly notify the claimant in the final admission of a credit for benefits previously paid to claimant because an uncontested final admission dispositively settles the amount of an employer's liability. Cibola Constr. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 971 P.2d 666 (Colo. App. 1998).   Uncontested admission of liability became a “final” award, which could not be reopened except pursuant to statute, despite parties' assertion that fraud rendered award void ab initio. Lewis v. Sci. Supply Co., Inc., 897 P.2d 905 (Colo. App. 1995).   Issue of PTD, therefore, was closed by FAL based upon division-sponsored independent medical examination that agreed with a prior determination that placed claimant at maximum medical improvement (MMI) and when claimant failed to endorse the issue of PTD benefits within 30 days. Olivas-Soto v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 143 P.3d 1178 (Colo. App. 2006).   Although issues raised in an FAL automatically close if not contested within 30 days under subsection (2)(b)(II), where a second FAL is issued before that time expires, the first admission has been superseded in its entirety. Under these circumstances, finality does not attach to the initial admission, and the case remains open during the 60-day period following the second admission. Leewaye v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 178 P.3d 1254 (Colo. App. 2007).   Final admission of liability for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits implicitly denies admission of liability for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. Olivas-Soto v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 143 P.3d 1178 (Colo. App. 2006).   To contest an aspect of an FAL, a claimant must state in the application for the hearing the benefit to which he or she is entitled. The claimant may not keep his or her case from being closed by filing a general objection to the FAL. Peregoy v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 87 P.3d 261 (Colo. App. 2004).   Neither subsection (2)(b)(II), nor any other provision in the Workers' Compensation Act, states or implies that a claimant may file an objection to an FAL without identifying a contested issue. Likewise, no provision states or implies that issues admitted in an FAL may remain open indefinitely until the claimant identifies a disputed issue and requests a hearing. Peregoy v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 87 P.3d 261 (Colo. App. 2004).   Neither state nor federal guarantees of equal protection are offended by the fact that a person whose claim has been closed under subsection (2)(b) must follow the reopening provisions of § 8-43-303 to reopen his or her workers' compensation claim. Peregoy v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 87 P.3d 261 (Colo. App. 2004).   Reopening of a claim under § 8-43-303 is not required for an employer to challenge future maintenance medical benefits because those benefits are, by their nature, not yet awarded, and therefore remain open despite an otherwise closed FAL. Bolton v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 2019 COA 47 , __ P.3d __.   The language “as to the issues admitted” in subsection (2)(b)(II) does not mean only those “issues” on which an employer agrees to pay benefits. Instead, the phrase should be interpreted as referring to issues on which the employer affirmatively takes a position, either by agreeing to pay benefits or by denying liability to pay benefits. Therefore, because permanent partial disability benefits and permanent total disability benefits both compensate for a claimant's permanent loss of earning capacity, an admission for permanent partial benefits constituted an implicit denial of liability for permanent total disability benefits. Dyrkopp v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 30 P.3d 821 (Colo. App. 2001).   An admission or denial of liability, though not in writing, is sufficient to terminate the running of the penalty period. Harrison v. Indus. Comm'n, 716 P.2d 477 (Colo. App. 1986); Eastman Kodak Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 725 P.2d 85 (Colo. App. 1986).   An admission of liability filed with the division of labor, with a copy to the claimant, is sufficient to terminate the penalty period; however, the penalty period is not terminated upon commencement of compensation payments absent such a filing because of the prejudice a claimant could suffer as a result of such an omission. Dorris v. Gardner Zemke Co., 765 P.2d 602 (Colo. App. 1988).   Section has been uniformly interpreted as requiring payment of a penalty in addition to payment of compensation. Therefore if an employer has failed timely to admit or deny liability and the claimant is successful in his claim for compensation, this section mandates assessment of a penalty in addition to requiring payment of compensation. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 725 P.2d 85 (Colo. App. 1986).   Employee is not entitled to penalty for failure of employer to timely admit or deny liability if employee missed no time from work and only medical benefits are awarded. Racon Const. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 775 P.2d 61 (Colo. App. 1989).   No penalty is provided in this section for failure of employer to promptly report an injury to its insurer. Campion v. Barta Builders, 780 P.2d 23 (Colo. App. 1989); Campbell v. IBM Corp., 867 P.2d 77 (Colo. App. 1993).   Because the general assembly has amended this section several times, but has not changed the wording affecting the liability of an insured employer, the holding that an employer is not liable for failing to report an injury to its insurer remains valid. U.S. Fid. & Guar., Inc. v. Kourlis, 868 P.2d 1158 (Colo. App. 1994).   For purposes of triggering a penalty assessment, a claim for compensation is successful at the time an employer files an admission of liability; a claimant need not establish an employer's liability through litigation on the merits of the claim. Dorris v. Gardner Zemke Co., 765 P.2d 602 (Colo. App. 1988).   Duty of carrier to admit or deny liability was not triggered by requests from employer for reimbursement of claimant's medical expenses under employer's wage continuation plan. There is no basis for holding that an employer's request for reimbursement is equivalent to actual notification or knowledge of a lost time work injury. Campbell v. IBM Corp., 867 P.2d 77 (Colo. App. 1993).   It is the duty of the trier of fact to resolve conflicting evidence, and court is bound by conclusions on review if such conclusions are supported by evidence. Eachus v. Cooper, 738 P.2d 383 (Colo. App. 1986).   Section 2-4-108 (1) covers computation of time periods under this section. Thus, the date of the claimant's injury should be excluded from the computation of the three-day waiting period. Ralston Purina-Keystone v. Lowry, 821 P.2d 910 (Colo. App. 1991).   Ruling of administrative law judge concluding that claimant had failed to establish the statutory requisites under subsection (2) was not contested by claimant and, thus, was binding on appeal. Rocky Mtn. Gen. v. Simon, 827 P.2d 629 (Colo. App. 1992).   The issue of a penalty provided by subsection (2) was not an issue admitted in a final admission. Thus, the case was not automatically closed within the meaning of subsection (2). The ALJ retained jurisdiction to impose a penalty, and the claimant was not required to contest an FAL pursuant to § 8-43-303 . Dalco Indus., Inc. v. Garcia, 867 P.2d 156 (Colo. App. 1993).   The phrase “as the case may be” included in subsection (2) is not ambiguous, but is the same as saying, “depending on the circumstances”. U.S. Fid. & Guar., Inc. v. Kourlis, 868 P.2d 1158 (Colo. App. 1994).   Employer's FAL for permanent total disability without reservation of the issue of the subsequent injury fund contribution was an admission that employer was solely liable. Safeway v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 968 P.2d 162 (Colo. App. 1998).   Once a claimant has successfully challenged a finding of MMI through the division independent medical examination (DIME) process, that process remains open, such that when the authorized treating physician (ATP) makes a second finding of MMI, the employer or insurer may not file an FAL to close the case until they return the claimant to the IME for a follow-up examination and determination of MMI. Williams v. Kunau, 147 P.3d 33 (Colo. 2006); Sanco Indus. v. Stefanski, 147 P.3d 5 (Colo. 2006).   A court's jurisdiction consists of two elements, jurisdiction over the parties and jurisdiction over the subject matter. The employer argued that “jurisdiction was lost” when claimant failed to respond to the first FAL within 30 days as required by subsection (2)(b)(II). In making this argument, employer conflates the issues of jurisdiction and failure to comply with a statutory provision. The ALJ and the panel had subject matter jurisdiction to consider claimant's MMI and PPD issues regarding compensation, so the subject matter jurisdiction of the ALJ and the panel are not implicated. Leewaye v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 178 P.3d 1254 (Colo. App. 2007).   Applied in Riley v. Indus. Comm'n, 628 P.2d 147 (Colo. App. 1981); Indus. Comm'n v. Riley, 653 P.2d 723 (Colo. 1982); Melnick v. Indus. Comm'n, 656 P.2d 1318 (Colo. App. 1982); Jones v. Adolph Coors Co., 689 P.2d 681 (Colo. App. 1984); Johnson v. McDonald, 697 P.2d 810 (Colo. App. 1985).