8-40-102. Legislative declaration.
Statute text
(1) It is the intent of the general assembly that the "Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado" be interpreted so as to assure the quick and efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits to injured workers at a reasonable cost to employers, without the necessity of any litigation, recognizing that the workers' compensation system in Colorado is based on a mutual renunciation of common law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike.
(2) The general assembly hereby finds that the determination of whether an individual is an employee for purposes of the "Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado" is subject to a great deal of speculation and litigation. It is the intent of the general assembly to provide an easily ascertainable standard for determining whether an individual is an employee. In order to further this objective, the test for determining whether an individual is an employee for the purposes of the "Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado" shall be based on the nine criteria found in section 8-40-202 (2)(b)(II) which shall supersede the common law. The fact that an individual performs services exclusively or primarily for another shall not be conclusive evidence that the individual is an employee.
History
Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 468, 1, effective July 1. L. 91: Entire section amended, p. 1291, 3, effective July 1. L. 93: Entire section amended, p. 355, 1, effective April 12. L. 95: (2) amended, p. 343, 1, effective July 1.
Annotations
Editor's note: This section is similar to former 8-40-101.5 as it existed prior to 1990.
Annotations
ANNOTATION
Annotations
Claimant has burden of establishing rights to workers' compensation benefits. Younger v. City & County of Denver, 810 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1991).
Subsection (1) applied in Weld County Sch. Dist. RE-12 v. Bymer, 955 P.2d 550 (Colo. 1998).
Subsection (1) does not confer eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits upon a claimant who is otherwise ineligible. McClaflin v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 126 P.3d 288 (Colo. App. 2005).