 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Federal Express v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office6/20/2002
the rights of the employer." However, as the Panel noted, § 8-43-201 pertains to the interpretation of facts or evidence and does not conflict with the rule of liberal statutory construction, which has been reaffirmed in recent supreme court decisions. See Weld County Sch. Dist. RE-12 v. Bymer, 955 P.2d 550 (Colo. 1998); Mountain City Meat Co. v. Oqueda, 919 P.2d 246 (Colo. 1996).
We also disagree with employer that Mascitelli is legally distinguishable. Although, as employer correctly points out, current law requires the scheduling of a hearing within eighty to one hundred days after the filing of an application for hearing, see §§ 8-43-209, 8-43-211, C.R.S. 2001, this change does not vest the claimant with control over the timing of an adjudication. As the Panel observed, other contingencies remain beyond the claimant's control, such as the docketing of the claim or the granting of continuances, which affect the timing of an adjudication. Thus, this rationale for Mascitelli retains its validity under the present act.
We agree with the Panel that the ALJ properly relied upon the Mascitelli decision to find that claimant's petition to reopen was not time barred and that the six-year period to reopen a claim is tolled on the date claimant files a petition to reopen.
The order is affirmed.
JUDGE PLANK and JUDGE DAILEY concur.
|