Legal Opinion

Culver v. Ace Electric

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided January 19, 1999No. 97SC891, 97SC892, 97SC767PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hobbs

We accepted two certiorari issues 1 and consolidated three cases to address the challenged constitutionality and proper application of the offset provision of section 8-42-103(l)(c)(II) and (IV), 3 C.R.S. (1998), of the Colorado Workers’ Compensation Act (Act). This provision reduces, but not below zero, the periodic permanent total disability payments otherwise payable to an injured worker who has reached the age of sixty-five and to whom, or to whose dependents, social security or employer-paid retirement benefits are also payable. The offset amount cannot exceed one-half of the workers’…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. United States Railroad Retirement Board v. FritzSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Richardson v. BelcherSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. People v. District Court, Second Judicial DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1986
  5. Engelbrecht v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1984

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Colorado Department of Labor & Employment v. EsserSupreme Court of Colorado · 2001
  2. Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. NelsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 2010
  3. Garhart Ex Rel. Tinsman v. Columbia/HealthOne, L.L.C.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2004
  4. Dillard v. Industrial Claim Appeals OfficeColorado Court of Appeals · 2005
  5. Dillard v. Industrial Claim Appeals OfficeSupreme Court of Colorado · 2006

29 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