Background
Philip Aragon alleged a compensable workers’ compensation injury in July 2020 after falling from a truck while working for Waste Management of Colorado. The employer and its insurer contested liability. In August 2021, respondents filed a motion to close the claim for lack of prosecution under Rule 7-1(C), which permits closure when no activity has occurred for at least six months. The Director issued a show cause order requiring Aragon to set and attend a hearing before the Office of Administrative Courts (OAC) by August 30, 2022, or obtain an extension.
Aragon filed an application for hearing but failed to attend any scheduled OAC hearing before the deadline. The Director closed the claim on September 9, 2022 for failure to prosecute. Aragon’s counsel filed a petition to review but initially misfiled it with the OAC rather than the Division of Workers’ Compensation. After two years, the petition was finally processed. The Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) failed to issue its decision within the statutory 60-day period and determined it lost jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that section 8-43-301(11), C.R.S. 2025 contains a mandatory, non-extendable 60-day deadline for the Panel to issue its order on appeal. The statute’s plain language provides that if the Panel fails to enter its order within 60 days of receiving the certified record, the Director’s order is automatically deemed the Panel’s final order. The Panel correctly determined it had lost authority to decide the appeal by its own inaction, and no authority exists to extend the statutory deadline.
The court affirmed the Director’s closure of the claim, finding no abuse of discretion. “Activity in furtherance of prosecution” requires more than merely filing applications for hearing. Aragon failed to attend the OAC hearing as explicitly required by the show cause order and failed to obtain an extension of the deadline. PALJ hearings addressing his repeated failures to attend independent medical examinations did not constitute prosecution activity. The Director properly found that no activity advancing the claim occurred during the relevant six-month period.
The court rejected Aragon’s due process arguments. Although injured employees with admitted or awarded benefits have a protected property interest, Aragon had no such interest because respondents contested liability and no benefits were ever awarded or admitted. Additionally, Aragon received adequate procedural due process through notice of the closure motion and opportunity to respond.
Key Takeaways
- The 60-day deadline in section 8-43-301(11) for the Panel to issue an appeal decision is mandatory and cannot be extended, even for clerical errors.
- “Activity in furtherance of prosecution” in workers’ compensation claims requires affirmative steps beyond filing hearing applications, such as actually attending scheduled hearings or obtaining extensions.
- Claimants who fail to comply with show cause orders requiring hearing attendance or extension requests lose their claims subject to reopening only under statutory criteria.
- Due process protections in workers’ compensation do not apply to claimants whose liability has been contested and who have never received admitted or awarded benefits.
- Appellate counsel must provide accurate citations and quotations; false citations may result in sanctions.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies critical timing requirements in Colorado workers’ compensation appeals and establishes firm boundaries around procedural defaults. The ruling emphasizes that the Panel’s 60-day decisional deadline is absolute—a clerical error cannot extend it, and administrative bodies cannot unilaterally grant extensions. This creates predictability for parties but also harsh consequences for claimants who fail to actively prosecute their claims within prescribed timeframes.
The opinion’s definition of “activity in furtherance of prosecution” has significant implications for claim management. Claimants must do more than mechanically file applications for hearing; they must actually attend scheduled hearings and promptly seek extensions if they cannot meet deadlines. The decision reinforces that workers’ compensation procedural rules must be strictly observed, as failure to comply results in claim closure. Practitioners must ensure clients understand that delay, even unintentional, can be fatal to a claim.