| | |
1st Quarter March 2025
Newsletter
| |
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Colorado Labor Peace Act Updates
Jonny Campbell
Powerful legislative changes are likely to be coming to a longstanding labor law in Colorado, which could change the process for organizing and empowering labor unions in our state.
SB25-005 passed through the Colorado Senate on February 18, 2025, drawing ever closer to Governor Polis’s desk. Most States in our union fit neatly into one of the two main jurisdictional categories: “right-to-work” States and non-“right-to-work” States. Unions have a peculiar treatment in Colorado.
What is the Difference?
Generally, the two kinds of jurisdictional schemes vary with how they manage union security agreements. A union security agreement is an agreement between the union and the employer that enables the union to require workers to join as a condition of their employment. It also may give the union the power to collect membership dues directly from all employee paychecks. The exact nature of the security agreement may vary depending on the state and the specific terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the union.
...[more]
| | |
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Colorado Rule 11 Changes
Effective April 1, 2025
Ivanka Hoffman
The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DOWC) recently announced that the proposed changes to Rule 11 have been adopted and will go into effect on April 1, 2025. According to the Division, the purpose of the change is to reduce process delays, provide more consistent Division IME packets assembled with less effort, and to ease the physician review process.
...[more]
| |
- Under the adopted Rule 11-3-(B)(1), the medical records packet must include all relevant records related to the diagnosis, treatment, and evaluation of the claimant’s work-related condition.
- However, certain documents, such as surveillance recordings, depositions, and vocational rehabilitation reports, cannot be included unless all parties agree, or a judge orders their inclusion.
| |
Employment Law Attorney
SPOTLIGHT
Meet Associate Attorney Jonny Cambell, one of Pollart Miller's top Labor and Employment Law attorneys.
Mr. Campbell counsels Colorado companies and decisionmakers on a variety of employment law matters, including human resources and personnel issues, legal compliance, and employment contracts. Mr. Campbell has a particular interest in detailed review of company policies and official documents including employee handbooks, non-compete and trade secret agreements, and severance agreements.
| | | | |
Construction Law Attorney
SPOTLIGHT
Pollart Miller is excited to announce that Associate Attorney Robbie Morrison is adding his expertise to our growing construction litigation practice.
Robbie focuses his practice on construction litigation defense involving both commercial and residential properties. His representation provides our clients with the benefit of his years of experience working within the construction industry. Robbie has worked on cases involving the Colorado Construction Defect Reform Act, subrogation, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of contract, enforcement of mechanic's liens, and consumer protection claims.
| | | |
To read all of the latest Winning Orders and Case Updates
visit our web blog.
| |
Outside the Course and Scope
Kristi Robarge
Respondents sought to withdraw an admission of liability when it was discovered that the claimant’s injury may have occurred outside of work. The claimant alleged that she rolled her ankle while on she was on a break at work. The claimant did not report the injury on the day it occurred and did not seek treatment through workers’ compensation until almost four months after the alleged incident occurred. Based on the claimant’s reports, Respondents admitted liability for the ankle injury. ...
...[more]
| | Johnson v. Transdev, W.C. No. 5-262-427-001 (Dec. 6, 2024). | |
Claimant Failed to Demonstrate a Compensable Work-Related Injury
Kevin Duarte
The claimant alleged a strain injury of his left shoulder, while working on his fifth day on the job. The claimant described his mechanism of injury as repeatedly lifting a heavy forty-pound plate, causing an alleged strain injury. On that basis, the claimant attempted to argue compensability due to the injury arising out of and in the course of employment. Moreover, the claimant not only sought temporary disability and medical benefits; but also sought penalties of $1,000 per day to be assessed against Respondents. ...[more]
Lowman v. Veris Environmental, W.C. No. 5-275-965-001 (Jan. 2, 2025).
[more]ext Link
| | |
In Ibrahim, the claimant was severely injured while driving and flipping a semi-tractor trailer truck. It was the claimant’s first trip working for the alleged employer, MKTS. The claim was denied based on an independent contract agreement that the claimant had signed. At an evidentiary hearing, both the claimant and MKTS’ owner testified. The ALJ found the claimant to be credible, but not MKTS’ owner. Despite this, the ALJ determined that the claimant was not an employee of MKTS, but rather an independent contractor. Claimant appealed against that decision and argued that the independent contractor agreement did not comply with A.R.S. § 23-902(D) and the services being provided were essential to MKTS’ business.
The ALJ applied the employer-employee factors to determine whether the claimant was an employee or an independent contractor, which the Court of Appeals adopted.
...[more]
Ibrahim v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., No. 1 CA-IC 24-0004, 2024 WL 4442832 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 2024).
| |
| |
Arizona:
Reporting Rule
Megan Bornmann
In a case involving a City of Tucson paramedic, the claimant progressively had worsening temper and anger issues. He went to a psychiatrist six times between 2017 and 2021 who found claimant to be “emotionally charged” and recommended that he find new ways to deal with his stress. The claimant was also prescribed medication for depression and anxiety. ...[more]
| | | | |
Colorado:
Mechanism of Injury Consistent with Activities of Daily Living
Luke Peterson
In Starken, in May 2022, the claimant was working as a heavy equipment operator at a mine when an excavator operator dropped dirt and rocks into the bed of the claimant’s large haul truck. The claimant asserted that the force of the rocks dropping in to the truck bed caused the truck to shake, shattering the windshield and “jostl[ing] him around.”
At the hospital, the claimant reported back pain, though he had no weakness in his legs and showed no signs of back trauma or an extremity injury in his physical exam. An x-ray showed degenerative disc disease with no evidence of fracture. The claimant was also noted as being hypoxic, though the claimant declined the attending physician’s recommended supplemental oxygen. ...[more]
Starken v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, No. 24CA0612 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
| |  | |
Colorado:
Retroactive Safety Violation Benefit Reduction Not Time Barred by Statute
Jonny Campbell
Jonny Campbell
In Sorensen, the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (the Panel) set aside the ALJ’s order denying an application for hearing to retroactively reduce the claimant’s compensation by 50% based on the claimant’s alleged violation of a safety rule.
Facts and Posture
The claimant worked as a security guard in a parking garage. On December 9, 2021, he was involved in an altercation with a vehicle leaving the garage. The claimant attempted to prevent the vehicle from exiting, and the vehicle drove into the claimant, lifting him onto the car’s hood. The claimant traveled some distance while on top of the vehicle’s hood before being thrown to the ground, sustaining multiple injuries.
...[more]
Sorensen v. Advantage Security Inc. and Pinnacol Assurance, W.C. No. 5-190-559-002 (I.C.A.O. Sep. 9, 2024).
| | | | |
COLORADO CASE LAW UPDATE
Colorado:
UIM Carriers and Immunity - Scope of Evaluation
Jonny Campbell
| | | |
The Colorado Supreme Court (the Court) held in Klabon v. Travelers, as a matter of first impression, that in Colorado, “an employee who is injured in the court of their employment by a third-party tortfeasor and who receives workers’ compensation benefits as a result of that injury can also sue to recover benefits for their employer’s separate uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) carrier.”
Further, the Court ruled that “when an employee is injured by the negligence of a third party, rather than by an employer or co-employee, a suit to recover UM/UIM benefits does not constitute a suit against the employer or co-employee and, therefore, is not barred by the exclusivity clause of the WCA.”
This decision means that the exclusivity clause of the Colorado Worker’s Compensation Act (“WCA”), C.R.S. §8-41-104 does not reach a separate UM/UIM carrier for the employer, which expands the menu of recovery available to an injured claimant in Colorado. ...[more]
2024 CO 66, Klabon v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, No. 23SA142 (Colo. 2024).
| | | | |
