CO Code § 8-43-215 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 8 - Labor and Industry|Article 43 - Procedure|Part 2 - Settlement and Hearing Procedures|§ 8-43-215. Orders

  No more than fifteen working days after the conclusion of a hearing, the administrative law judge or director shall issue a written order allowing or denying the claim. The written order must either be a summary order or a full order. A full order must contain specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. If compensation benefits are granted, the written order must specify the amounts thereof, the disability for which compensation benefits are granted, by whom and to whom such benefits are to be paid, and the method and time of the payments. A certificate of mailing and a copy of the written order shall be served by regular or electronic mail or by facsimile to each of the parties in interest or their representatives, the original of which is a part of the records in the case. If an administrative law judge has issued a summary order, a party dissatisfied with the order may make a written request for a full order within ten working days after the date of mailing of the summary order. The request is a prerequisite to review under section 8-43-301. If a request for a full order is made, the administrative law judge has ten working days after receipt of the request to issue the order. A full order shall be entered as the final award of the administrative law judge or director subject to review as provided in this article.    Repealed.     History. Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 507, § 1, effective July 1. L. 91: Entire section amended, p. 1320, § 31, effective July 1. L. 92: Entire section amended, p. 1804, § 1, effective April 16. L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 1877, § 9, effective June 1. L. 2000: Entire section amended, p. 480, § 1, effective April 28. L. 2007: (1) amended, p. 1474, § 7, effective May 30. L. 2008: (1) amended, p. 1880, § 9, effective August 5. L. 2014: (1) amended,(SB 14-191), ch. 316, p. 1373, § 5, effective July 1.    Editor's note:    This section is similar to former § 8-53-110 as it existed prior to 1990.    Subsection (2)(b) provided for the repeal of subsection (2), effective July 1, 2004. (SeeL. 2000, p. 480.)     ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   The only awards which are final and therefore reviewable are those which either allow or deny a claim or in some manner fix the rights or responsibilities of the parties. Indus. Comm's v. Globe Indem. Co., 145 Colo. 453 , 358 P.2d 885 (1961); Stanley Hotel v. Thomas, 153 Colo. 503 , 387 P.2d 27 (1963); Hayward v. Majestic Wax Co., 170 Colo. 203 , 460 P.2d 74 (1969).   And where hearing officer directs party to prepare written form of order, the order is not final until signed by the hearing officer. Neoplan USA Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 721 P.2d 157 (Colo. App. 1986).   And the order of the referee (now hearing officer) is the order of the industrial commission (now director) if a petition for review is not filed. Carlson v. Indus. Comm'n, 79 Colo. 124 , 244 P. 68 (1926).   But compensation matter pending on petition of review not final award. Where a workmen's compensation matter is still pending on the employer's petition to review a previous award, the referee (now hearing officer) still has statutory authority to modify or amend the award; it is not a final award. Colo. Fuel & Iron Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 151 Colo. 18 , 379 P.2d 153 (1962).   Order of hearing officer in workers' compensation cases does not enter until it is set forth in writing and copy is mailed to parties in interest. Wait v. Jan's Malt Shoppe, 736 P.2d 1265 (Colo. App. 1987).   “Parties in interest” construed. Where the claimant was represented by an attorney, she was not required to receive her own separate copy of the order. Brodeur v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 159 P.3d 810 (Colo. App. 2007).   Effective date of permission for change of treating physician is date of ALJ's oral summary order, not the date of the written order required by this section. Consol. Landscape v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 883 P.2d 571 (Colo. App. 1994).   Order which was drafted by retired hearing officer, but was signed by substitute, was invalid, as retired hearing officer had no authority to enter order where he was retired at time order was presented in written form and mailed to the parties. Wait v. Jan's Malt Shoppe, 736 P.2d 1265 (Colo. App. 1987).   Section gives administrative law judge discretion to order that a portion of the benefits payable to claimant be reimbursed to claimant's automobile insurance company pursuant to statute seeking to prevent duplication of benefits. Oxford Chems., Inc. v. Richardson, 782 P.2d 843 (Colo. App. 1989).   Administrative law judge did not lack jurisdiction to enter an order merely because the order was entered after the 15-day time limit found in this section. The section is directory rather than mandatory, as the general assembly did not evidence a contrary intent to the general rule that time limits imposed on public bodies are construed as directory rather than mandatory. Langton v. Rocky Mtn. Health Care, 937 P.2d 883 (Colo. App. 1996).   A party does not have the right to receive specific findings of fact and conclusions of law unless the division of administrative services receives the request within 15 days. Mailing the request within the 15 days does not suffice. The office must receive the request within 15 days; otherwise, the administrative law judge lacks jurisdiction to issue such specific findings. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 24 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2000).