Opinion ID: 2595483
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Correction of the Summary

Text: On May 11, 2000, the Board filed a corrected summary with this court. The corrected summary removed two transcription errors. First, it deleted the word equal between the word full and implementation in the eighth paragraph of the summary. The second correction occurred in the summary's second to last paragraph; the Board deleted the word the between for and continuation. Wagoner asserts that these changes were void because the Board lost jurisdiction when the petitioners filed their petitions for review. Citing Colorado State Board of Medical Examiners v. Lopez-Samayoa, 887 P.2d 8, 14 (Colo.1994), Wagoner claims that it is a well-settled principle of administrative law that the filing of a notice of appeal for judicial review divests an agency of jurisdiction over a matter. However, Lopez-Samayoa recognizes an exception to the general rule that a notice of appeal divests a lower court of jurisdiction where the proceedings do not involve a challenge to the propriety of the judgment. Id. at 15. The May 11 changes were purely clerical corrections. We note that C.R.C.P. 60(a) provides: (a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal such mistakes may be so corrected before the case is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court. (emphasis added.) While C.R.C.P. 60(a) does not apply directly to proceedings before the Board, we believe that the same principle is involved. As long as the appellate court has not expressly or implicitly ruled on the issue, the district court has not transgressed any jurisdictional boundaries by amending [a judgement to correct a clerical mistake under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a)] after an appeal has been taken. Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Serv. Co., 789 F.2d 991, 994 (2d Cir.1986). The petitioners do not allege that the Board's May 11 submission did anything other than correct two clerical mistakes. We conclude that the Board did not intrude on our jurisdiction when it made the corrections. We therefore reject the petitioner's contention.