CO Code § 8-74-103 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 8 - Labor and Industry|Article 74 - Claims for Benefits|§ 8-74-103. Hearing Officer Review

  Any interested party who is dissatisfied with a deputy's decision may appeal that decision and obtain a hearing covering any issue relevant to the disputed claim. The issue of a claimant's availability will be relevant to the extent set forth in section 8-73-107 (1)(c)(I)(A). The initial appeal shall be to a hearing officer designated by the director of the division and must be received by the division within twenty calendar days after the date of notification of the decision of the deputy in accordance with such rules as the director of the division may promulgate. “Deputy”, as used in this article, means a person who adjudicates claims for the division when Colorado is the paying state. Wages paid in Colorado and transferred to another state in which the claimant has filed shall not be subject to adjudication by a deputy of the division or to an appeal directed to this state.    The hearing officer shall have the power and authority to call, preside at, and conduct hearings pursuant to the provisions of section 8-72-108 and such regulations as the director of the division may prescribe.    The hearing officer, after affording all interested parties a reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing in conformity with the provisions of this article and the regulations of the division, shall make a decision on each relevant issue raised, including findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. The division shall promptly provide all interested parties with copies of the hearing officer's decision.    The hearing officer may conduct all appeal hearings at designated locations which are most convenient to the claimant and employer. If the claimant and employer request that such hearing be bifurcated, the division may honor this request.     History. Source: L. 76: Entire article R&RE, p. 355, § 1, effective October 1. L. 79: (1) amended and (4) added, p. 352, § 15, effective September 30. L. 81: Entire section R&RE, p. 484, § 8, effective July 1. L. 86: (2) and (3) amended, p. 489, § 92, effective July 1. L. 96: (1) amended, p. 383, § 7, effective April 17. L. 2002: (1) amended, p. 337, § 2, effective April 19. L. 2007: (1) amended, p. 803, § 4, effective August 3.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former §§ 8-74-103 and 8-74-104 as they existed prior to 1976.   ANNOTATION   Inadequate notice. Notice given pursuant to this section, and the regulation relating thereto, that “All issues and factual matters affecting claimant's eligibility and qualifications for benefits will be heard ...” deprived claimant of a fair hearing within the meaning of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 503 (a)(3). Shaw v. Valdez, 819 F.2d 965 (10th Cir. 1987).   Redetermination of disqualification period. When a claimant appeals the merits of a deputy's decision finding him eligible for only a reduced award, the period of disqualification from benefits entirely is subject to redetermination by the hearing officer. Armijo v. Indus. Comm'n, 44 Colo. App. 171, 610 P.2d 107 (1980).   Hearing officer is required to independently assess evidence presented at hearing and to reach own conclusions regarding the reason for claimant's separation from employment as well as the probative value of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the resolution of any conflicting testimony. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Fredrickson, 812 P.2d 723 (Colo. App. 1991).   Statute contemplates that the hearing before the hearing officer be conducted on a de novo basis. Lucero v. Indus. Claim App. Office, 812 P.2d 1191 (Colo. App. 1991).   The time for filing of appeal can only be waived for good cause shown. There was no good cause shown where the claimant failed to keep the division informed of his mailing address and therefore did not receive the decision in time to file an appeal. Sproule v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 830 P.2d 1152 (Colo. App. 1992).   Applied in Andrews v. Dir., Div. of Emp., 41 Colo. App. 408, 585 P.2d 933 (1978); Nguyen v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 174 P.3d 847 (Colo. App. 2007).