Legal Opinion

Heinicke v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided September 4, 2008No. 07CA1640PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge GABRIEL.

This workers' compensation proceeding presents two issues relating to petitions for reopening under section 8-48-308, C.R.S. 2007. Claimant, Aun Heinicke (claimant), argues that once an authorized treating physician (ATP) increases a worker's physical impairment rating, a change in condition is established and reopening is required as a matter of law. She further contends that onee an ATP finds an increased physical impairment resulting from the original compensable injury, an employer may not litigate the question of whether a claim should be reopened without first…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Grover v. Industrial Com'n of ColoradoSupreme Court of Colorado · 1988
  2. Kraus v. Artcraft Sign Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1985
  3. Auman v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2005
  4. Anderson v. Longmont Toyota, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2004
  5. Williams v. KunauSupreme Court of Colorado · 2006

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Kilpatrick v. Industrial Claim Appeals OfficeColorado Court of Appeals · 2015
  2. Meridian Ranch Metropolitan District v. Colorado Ground Water CommissionColorado Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. Ortega v. INDUS. CLAIM APPEALS OFF. OF STATEColorado Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. Hoskins v. Industrial Claim Appeals OfficeColorado Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. Markus v. BrohlColorado Court of Appeals · 2014

10 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