Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. Nelson

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided May 10, 2010No. 09SC536Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Rice

Because the 2007 amendment to section 8-48-406, C.R.S. (2009), constitutes a substantive change to workers' compensation award payments, I dissent from part of the majority opinion. To properly assess the amendment's effect on Nelson's claim, we must determine whether the General Assembly intended that the amendment apply to preexisting claims and whether the amendment effects a substantive or a procedural adjustment. I agree with the majority that nothing in the amendment demonstrates that the General Assembly intended retroactive application, so it should apply prospectively only. However,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hill v. DeWittSupreme Court of Colorado · 2002
  2. Vaughan v. McMinnSupreme Court of Colorado · 1997
  3. Ficarra v. Department of Regulatory Agencies, Division of InsuranceSupreme Court of Colorado · 1993
  4. City of Colorado Springs v. PowellSupreme Court of Colorado · 2007
  5. People v. D.K.B.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1993

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API