Summary
In Saxton v. Industrial Commission, 41 Colo. App. 309, 584 P.2d 638 (1978), we determined that the failure to file a brief in support of a petition for review of a hearing officer's order is not a jurisdictional defect.
Summary of this case from Ortiz v. Ind. CommissionOpinion
No. 78-398
Decided September 7, 1978.
Industrial Commission dismissed petition to review referee's decision denying workmen's compensation benefits to claimant, and claimant sought review of that dismissal.
Order Reversed
1. WORKERS' COMPENSATION — Petition to Review Referee's Order — Brief in Support — No Requirement. Workmen's compensation claimant was not required by rule or statute to file a brief in support of her petition to the Industrial Commission for review of a referee's order, and thus dismissal of her petition because a supporting brief was untimely filed was error.
2. Jurisdiction — Industrial Commission — Not Dependent Briefs — Support of Petition. In the absence of a contrary statute or rule, the Industrial Commission is not deprived of jurisdiction to entertain a petition seeking review of a referee's order by the failure of petitioner to file a supporting brief, and where such a brief is filed, jurisdiction is not defeated because the filing was untimely.
Review of Order from the Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado
Richard M. Borchers, for petitioner.
J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, David W. Robbins, Deputy Attorney General, Louis L. Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Industrial Commission of Colorado.
Dale A. Geralach, James A. May, William J. Baum, for respondents State Compensation Insurance Fund, and State of Colorado, Division of Employment.
Petitioner (claimant) seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Commission dismissing her petition for review of the referee's decision denying claimant workmen's compensation benefits for permanent partial disability. We set aside the order and remand the cause with directions.
On June 17, 1977, the referee entered an order denying claimant benefits for permanent partial disability. On July 1, 1977, claimant filed a timely petition to review the referee's order. Thereafter claimant received several extensions of time in which to file a transcript of the proceedings before the referee and to file a brief in support of her petition. The transcript was filed within the period granted by the extensions; however, claimant's brief in support of her petition was filed fourteen days late.
On January 10, 1978, the referee entered an order dismissing claimant's petition on the basis that it was untimely because the brief in support thereof was not filed within the extension period. The referee concluded in effect that the claimant's failure to file a brief within the specified time deprived the Commission of jurisdiction to consider claimant's petition for review. The January 10, 1978, order of the referee was adopted and affirmed by the Commission.
[1] There is no statutory requirement that a brief be filed in support of a petition to review a referee's decision or an order of the Commission. See § 8-53-106, C.R.S. 1973. Claimant's petition for review filed on July 1, 1977, without supporting brief, fully complied with the requirements of § 8-53-106(1) and (3), C.R.S. 1973. See Miller v. Industrial Commission, 28 Colo. App. 462, 474 P.2d 177 (1970).
The Commission argues that the rules and regulations promulgated by it governing procedure in workmen's compensation cases require claimant to file a brief in support of her petition for review, and that the failure of the claimant to comply with these rules deprived the Commission of jurisdiction to consider claimant's petition for review. We disagree.
[2] We do not quarrel with the fact that the Commission has authority to adopt reasonable and proper rules and regulations to govern proceedings in workmen's compensation cases as provided by § 8-46-108, C.R.S. 1973. And, by necessary implication, the Commission has the further power to enforce its own rules and regulations by the imposition of appropriate sanctions. In the present case, however, no reference is made, in either the decision of the referee or that of the Commission, to any rule authorizing dismissal for the late filing of a brief. Further, the failure of the claimant to comply with such a rule, if it in fact exists, does not defeat the jurisdiction of the Commission which is conferred by statute. Cf. Industrial Commission v. Plains Utility Co., 127 Colo. 506, 259 P.2d 282 (1953). Hence, the Commission erred in concluding that claimant's failure to file a supporting brief in a timely manner deprived the Commission of jurisdiction to review the referee's decision of June 17, 1977.
Accordingly, the order of the Commission is set aside and the cause remanded to the Commission with directions to consider claimant's petition for review on its merits.
JUDGE COYTE and JUDGE BERMAN concur.