Schmidt v. ICAO

24CA1641 Schmidt v ICAO 02-20-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA1641
Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado
DD No. 23028-2024

Tiffany Schmidt,

Petitioner,

v.

Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado and Division of
Unemployment Insurance,

Respondents.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division I
Opinion by JUDGE YUN
J. Jones and Brown, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced February 20, 2025

Tiffany Schmidt, Pro Se

No Appearance for Respondents
¶1 In this unemployment benefits case, Tiffany Schmidt seeks

review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel)

affirming a hearing officer’s dismissal of her appeal as untimely.

We affirm the Panel’s order.

I. Background

¶2 Schmidt worked as a banquet server for Vail Associates, Inc.

In February 2023, she filed a claim for benefits with the Division of

Unemployment Insurance (Division). On June 26, 2023, a deputy

for the Division issued a decision denying Schmidt’s claim. The

deputy noted that eligibility for benefits under the Employment

Security Act is conditioned on claimants registering for work with

the Division’s employment office. See § 8-73-107(1)(a), C.R.S. 2024.

The deputy determined that Schmidt had failed to register, making

her ineligible for benefits. As a result, the deputy disallowed

payments from March 2023 through February 2024 and informed

Schmidt that she must repay any benefits already received during

this timeframe.

¶3 Additionally, the deputy’s decision informed Schmidt that she

had the right to appeal the decision within twenty calendar days

1
from the date the decision was mailed. The decision further notified

Schmidt that

In the event that your appeal is received more
than 180 days late, . . . the appeal will be
dismissed, and the deputy’s decision will
become final.

The Division mailed the deputy’s decision on June 26, 2023. Thus,

Schmidt’s deadline to file an appeal was Monday, July 17, 2023.

See § 8-70-103(5), C.R.S. 2024 (deadlines falling on weekends

automatically extend to the next weekday).

¶4 Over a year later, on August 19, 2024, Schmidt filed an appeal

regarding the deputy’s decision. She explained the reasons for her

late filing, noting that she “tried to request a waiver” and that she

“had a baby and moved states and was distracted.” Schmidt did

not dispute that she had received the deputy’s decision in a timely

manner.

¶5 A hearing officer for the Division issued an order dismissing

Schmidt’s appeal. The hearing officer explained that Department of

Labor & Employment Regulation 12.1.3.2, 7 Code Colo. Regs.

1101-2, prohibits appeals filed more than 180 days past the filing

deadline. Because Schmidt filed her appeal outside that 180-day

2
window, Regulation 12.1.3.2 mandated dismissal. See Dep’t of Lab.

& Emp. Reg. 12.1.3.2, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2.

¶6 Schmidt timely appealed the hearing officer’s order to the

Panel. In her appeal, Schmidt conceded that she had received

benefits that the deputy’s order ultimately disallowed, which meant

that she was required to repay those amounts. She noted her

inability to repay and her good faith efforts to reach a resolution

with the Division.

¶7 In affirming the hearing officer’s decision, the Panel found that

Schmidt’s electronic account with the Division showed her

preference for receiving information and communications

electronically. It further found, by inference, that the Division

timely uploaded the deputy’s decision to Schmidt’s electronic

account and that Schmidt failed to timely appeal the decision

because she mistakenly believed that she could effectively resolve

the disallowed payments by requesting a waiver of the overpayment.

Nonetheless, the Panel explained that, under Regulation 12.1.3.2,

“appealing a deputy’s decision over 180 days late may not be

excused[,]” and, thus, the Panel affirmed the hearing officer’s order.

See Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Reg. 12.1.3.2, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2.

3
II. Discussion

¶8 On appeal, Schmidt acknowledges that she failed to timely

appeal the deputy’s order. She explains that factors such as

“anxiety . . . and new stresses[,]” including the birth of her first

child and a move to another state, contributed to her delay.

Additionally, Schmidt raises several arguments concerning the

merits of the deputy’s decision and the alleged discrepancies

between the amount the Division required her to repay and the

amount she actually received in overpayment. However, at this

stage in the proceedings, neither the merits of the deputy’s decision

nor the alleged discrepancies are properly before us because the

Panel never reached those issues. See § 8-74-107, C.R.S. 2024

(granting appellate court jurisdiction to review only the Panel’s

decision); People in Interest of M.B., 2020 COA 13, ¶ 14 (an

appellate court generally reviews only matters ruled on in the order

being appealed). Therefore, our review is limited to the sole issue

the Panel addressed: whether Regulation 12.1.3.2 bars Schmidt’s

late appeal of the deputy’s decision. See id.; Dep’t of Lab. & Emp.

Reg. 12.1.3.2, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2; see also 8-74-106(1),

4
C.R.S. 2024 (making deputy decisions “final” unless appealed

within twenty days, absent good cause shown).

¶9 We may set aside the Panel’s decision only if (1) the Panel

acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the decision was

procured by fraud; (3) the findings of fact do not support the

decision; or (4) the decision is erroneous as a matter of law.

§ 8-74-107(6).

¶ 10 Under section 8-74-106(1)(a), the Division must provide a

claimant notice of a deputy’s decision “by mailing a copy of the

decision to the [claimant’s] last-known address” or “by electronic

means.” A claimant who seeks to appeal a deputy’s decision must

file a petition for appeal “within twenty calendar days after the date

of notification of such decision.” Id. Generally, a hearing officer

may accept a late appeal for good cause shown and in accordance

with rules adopted by the Division’s director. § 8-74-106(1)(b).

However, if an appeal is more than 180 days late, “good cause may

not be established, a hearing shall not be scheduled, the appeal

shall be dismissed, and the deputy’s decision shall become final.”

Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Reg. 12.1.3.2, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2.

5
¶ 11 In this case, it is undisputed that the Division mailed the

deputy decision to Schmidt on June 26, 2023, and timely uploaded

it to Schmidt’s electronic account with the Division. Despite

receiving the decision in a timely manner, Schmidt filed her appeal

well past the 180 day deadline. See § 8-74-106(1)(a). Given these

facts, we agree with the Panel that the hearing officer properly

dismissed Schmidt’s appeal, as required by Regulation 12.1.3.2.

See Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Reg. 12.1.3.2, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2.

III. Disposition

¶ 12 The Panel’s order is affirmed.

JUDGE J. JONES and JUDGE BROWN concur.

6