Court Opinion

ID: 9864895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:16:07.174674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:31.148959
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Young,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in a part of the opinion of Mr. Justice Holland and dissent in part. I think the case should be sent back for a determination of all issues, except that of whether the statute of limitations applies.
As I view the matter, the sole issue before us when the case was before presented was whether the statute of limitations applied. Frank v. Industrial Commission, 96 Colo. 364, 43 P. (2d) 158. In going beyond that issue and determining that a compensable injury had been sustained, when the commission had not acted upon that question, I think we determined issues not properly before us, and in so doing circumscribed the parties on the second hearing, so that issues there proper for determination were not and could not be acted upon. I now believe it would have been logical and the better practice in the former case to have required the commission to determine whether claimant sustained a compensable injury before determining the issue of whether his claim was or was not barred by the. statute of limitations; but since the issue of the statute of limitations was raised and, as I believe, correctly determined, our former opinion on that question should stand as the law of the case *533and the case should be sent back to determine all other issues involved except that of the statute of limitations.