2021 Colorado Code
Title 8 - Labor and Industry
Article 43 - Procedure
Part 3 - Review Procedures
§ 8-43-313. Summary Review by Supreme Court

Any affected party dissatisfied with the decision of the court of appeals may seek review by writ of certiorari in the supreme court. If the supreme court reviews the judgment of the court of appeals, such review shall be limited to a summary review of questions of law. Any such action shall be advanced upon the calendar of the supreme court, and a final decision shall be rendered within sixty days after the date the supreme court grants further appellate review. The director, an administrative law judge, the industrial claim appeals office, or any other aggrieved party shall not be required to file any undertaking or other security upon review by the supreme court.

History. Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 512, § 1, effective July 1. L. 91: Entire section amended, p. 1325, § 38, effective July 1. L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 1879, § 13, effective June 1.

This section is similar to former § 8-53-125 as it existed prior to 1990.

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

In a workmen's compensation case, review by the supreme court is limited to a summary review of questions of law. James v. Irrigation Motor & Pump Co., 180 Colo. 195 , 503 P.2d 1025 (1972).

For the supreme court is not a fact-finding body and can only affirm or reverse the judgment of a lower court or, if the circumstances require, order a remand for further findings. Miller v. Denver Post, Inc., 137 Colo. 61 , 322 P.2d 661 (1958).

And findings of fact are controlling on the supreme court on review. Indus. Comm'n v. Enyeart, 81 Colo. 521 , 256 P. 314 (1927).

Thus, the supreme court will not on review disturb findings based upon conflicting evidence. Vanadium Corp. of Am. v. Sargent, 134 Colo. 555 , 307 P.2d 454 (1957).

Especially, where there is sufficient competent evidence in the record to support the award, it is the duty of the lower court to affirm such award; and it is the duty of the supreme court to affirm the judgment of the lower court. Indus. Comm'n v. Royal Indem. Co., 124 Colo. 210 , 236 P.2d 293 (1951); Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 124 Colo. 217 , 236 P.2d 296 (1951); Continental Cas. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 124 Colo. 295 , 238 P.2d 196 (1951).

Inferences drawn from the facts are not binding on the supreme court. Deines Bros. v. Indus. Comm'n, 125 Colo. 258 , 242 P.2d 600 (1952).

And court not bound by conclusions of law. Where the facts are undisputed the question is one of law and the supreme court on review of a case is not bound by the conclusions of law. Indus. Comm'n v. Bonfils, 78 Colo. 306 , 241 P. 735 (1925); Deines Bros. v. Indus. Comm'n, 125 Colo. 258 , 242 P.2d 600 (1952); Vanadium Corp. of Am. v. Sargent, 134 Colo. 555 , 307 P.2d 454 (1957); Denver Truck Exch. v. Perryman, 134 Colo. 586 , 307 P.2d 805 (1957).

Question whether evidence supports award is one of law. While the supreme court is only permitted to consider questions of law in workmen's compensation cases, whether an award is supported by evidence, is such a question and may be considered on review. Indus. Comm'n v. Elkas, 73 Colo. 475 , 216 P. 521 (1923).

However, the supreme court may consider only the legal question of whether there is evidence to support the findings, and not whether its probative effect has been misconstrued. The award is conclusive upon all matters of fact properly in dispute, where supported by evidence, or reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. Passini v. Indus. Comm'n, 64 Colo. 349 , 171 P. 369 (1918); Indus. Comm'n v. Koppers Co., 66 Colo. 596 , 185 P. 267 (1919); Hassell Iron Works Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 70 Colo. 386 , 201 P. 894 (1921); Empire Zinc Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 71 Colo. 251 , 206 P. 158 (1922); Vanadium Corp. of Am. v. Sargent, 134 Colo. 555 , 307 P.2d 454 (1957); Colo. Fuel & Iron Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 151 Colo. 18 , 379 P.2d 153 (1962); Capital Chevrolet Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 159 Colo. 156 , 410 P.2d 518 (1966); Hatterman v. Indus. Comm'n, 171 Colo. 370 , 467 P.2d 820 (1970).

And it cannot reverse the findings on the weight of evidence. Employer's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Morgulski, 69 Colo. 223 , 193 P. 725 (1920); Armour & Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 78 Colo. 569 , 243 P. 546 (1926). See Employers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 83 Colo. 315 , 265 P. 99 (1928).

Giving erroneous reason for proper award will not prevent affirmance. The reason given for a proper award, if erroneous, will not prevent an affirmance of the award by the supreme court on review. Indus. Comm'n v. Bonfils, 78 Colo. 306 , 241 P. 735 (1925).

Bill of appeal will lie only to final judgment of lower court. A bill of appeal will lie to a judgment of the lower court entered upon the review of an order or award; but this means a final judgment, and not a mere interlocutory order. Continental Cas. Co. v. Connell, 87 Colo. 577 , 290 P. 273 (1930).