Legal Opinion
Naiden v. Epps
Colorado Court of Appeals
Decided December 30, 1993No. 93CA0007PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Judge CRISWELL.
Petitioners, Era and Neil Naiden (the employers), challenge the constitutionality of a portion of the Workers’ Compensation Act applied by the Industrial Claim Appeals Panel in determining that Penny A. Epps (claimant) was entitled to disability benefits because she performed full-time domestic work. We uphold the constitutionality of the statute, § 8-40-302(4), C.R.S. (1993 Cum.Supp.), and, therefore, affirm the Panel’s order.
Claimant injured her back while performing duties as a domestic worker in the employers’ home. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Firelock Inc. v. District Court in & for the 20th Judicial District of the State of ColoradoSupreme Court of Colorado · 1989
- Bellendir v. KezerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1982
- Bushnell v. SappSupreme Court of Colorado · 1977
- Higgs v. Western Landscaping & Sprinkler Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Marcus v. HolleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2005
- COLORADO AFL-CIO v. DonlonColorado Court of Appeals · 1995
- McKinney v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of ColoradoColorado Court of Appeals · 1995
- Christie v. Coors Transportation Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1996
- Culver v. Ace ElectricColorado Court of Appeals · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.