 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cruz-Cesario v. Don Carlos Mexican Foods9/22/2005
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
Taubman and Carparelli, JJ., concur
In this declaratory judgment action concerning the validity of a workers' compensation rule, plaintiff, Denise L. Cruz-Cesario (employee), appeals the district court's judgment dismissing her complaint against defendant, Don Carlos Mexican Foods (employer). The dismissal was based on employee's failure to join the Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation as an indispensable party. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Employee was injured while working for employer and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. After employer filed a final admission of liability, the workers' compensation claim was closed.
Alleging that her condition worsened, employee filed a petition to reopen her workers' compensation claim pursuant to § 8-43-303, C.R.S. 2005, of the Workers' Compensation Act (Act). Employer filed a motion to strike the petition because a medical report was not attached as required by Department of Labor and Employment Rule X(B)(2), 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-3. The administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the motion to strike, but determined that employee could not apply for a hearing on the petition to reopen until she obtained a medical report or a declaratory judgment that she need not obtain a report.
Employee then filed this action in district court for a judgment declaring that Rule X(B)(2) is void because it violates § 8-43-303. Employee also alleged that the rule violated her right to equal protection and substantive due process because she is financially unable to obtain a medical report to attach to her petition to reopen.
Employer filed a motion to dismiss the district court action pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b) alleging, inter alia, that employee failed to join the Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation (director) as an indispensable party under C.R.C.P. 19. The court granted the motion. In a separate order, the court later clarified that the dismissal was with prejudice.
I.
Employee first contends that the district court erred in finding that the director is an indispensable party. We disagree.
Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 19(a), a person or entity whose presence is necessary to assure complete relief or to protect a legally cognizable interest at stake in an action must be joined as a party thereto. Hidden Lake Dev. Co. v. Dist. Court, 183 Colo. 168, 515 P.2d 632 (1973).
The test for determining indispensability under C.R.C.P. 19 is whether the absent person's interest in the subject matter of the litigation is such that no decree can be entered in the case which will do justice between the parties actually before the court without injuriously affecting the right of such absent person. Woodco v. Lindahl, 152 Colo. 49, 380 P.2d 234 (1963); Prutch Bros. Television & Music Sys., Inc. v. Crow Watson No. 8, 732 P.2d 241 (Colo. App. 1986).
Under C.R.C.P. 19(b), factors to consider in determining whether a person is an indispensable party include: (1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's absence might be prejudicial to the person or to those already parties; (2) the extent to which prejudice can be lessened or avoided by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or by other measures; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence will be adequate; and (4) whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for non-joinder. Balkind v. Telluride Mountain Title Co., 8 P.3d 581 (Colo. App. 2000).
Whether a party is indispensable and must be joined is a mixed q
Page 1 2 3 Colorado Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|