Jarosinski v. ICAO, 02CA332 (December 5, 2002): Claimant sustained a compensable injury, with symptoms of headaches, dizziness and depression, in November 1997. After she reached maximum medical improvement in November 1999, claimant underwent a Division of Workers' Compensation-sponsored independent medical examination (DIME). The DIME doctor retracted his impairment rating after viewing videotapes showing claimant doing activities that were inconsistent with the symptoms and disability she had reported. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied and dismissed claimant's claim for permanent medical impairment benefits.
Claimant later filed a petition to reopen on the grounds that her condition had worsened. The ALJ found that claimant's depression had worsened, but he determined that any change of condition resulted from claimant's experiences during the litigation when she had to watch the surveillance videotapes. The ALJ held that any change of condition was not a natural consequence of the industrial injury. The petition to reopen was denied.
The court of appeals affirmed. The court held that litigation stress is an intervening event, not a compensable consequence of the industrial injury. The court distinguished this case from a situation in which the claimant's worsened depression results from a weakened condition stemming from the compensable injury.

By remembering crucial time constraints and calendaring them properly, you can prevent lost subrogation opportunities and increase recoveries. Immediately after you determine that a viable subrogation claim exists, you should identify the applicable statute of limitations and calendar the exact date on which the statute will run out. In workers' compensation, subrogation arises most typically from slip and falls, and automobile accidents. Generally, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the injured employee knew, or reasonably should have known of the injury and its cause.
When an employee is injured in a slip and fall on property other than the employer's premises, the Premises Liability Statute, § 13-21-115, C.R.S., governs liability. This statute establishes the legal relationships between landowners and those who enter the landowner's property. The degree of care a landowner owes to a visitor depends upon whether the visitor is a trespasser, a licensee, or an invitee. The landowner owes a different legal duty of care to each of these categories of visitor and may not delegate that duty to another to absolve the landowner of liability. For example, when someone is injured in a slip and fall on ice, the landowner may still be liable for the injury although the landowner had hired a property manager.
Once you have determined that an accident was due to the failure of a landowner to protect the employee against a dangerous condition on the landowner's premises, there is a two-year statute of limitations, found in § 13-80-102, C.R.S., within which to bring a negligence action against that landowner. 
Subrogation actions arising out of automobile accidents involving injured employees fall under the three-year statute of limitations in § 13-80-101, C.R.S. This statute covers all motor vehicle accidents, regardless of the cause, including accidents involving injuries to pedestrians. In general, any subrogation claim to recover benefits in excess of personal injury protection benefits paid under the No-Fault Act, § 10-4-701, et seq., C.R.S., is governed by a three-year statute of limitations.
Claims involving medical malpractice by a healthcare provider that injures an employee are subject to the two-year statute of limitations in § 13-80-102.5, C.R.S. Another area of potential subrogation is liability for an employee's exposure to molds, toxins, or other hazardous substances caused by the negligence of an architect, contractor or builder in the design or construction of a building or some other improvement. This type of claim is governed by the six-year statute of limitations in § 13-80-104, C.R.S.
Under the Governmental Immunity Act, § 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., when employee is injured by a public entity or by the actions of a public employee, the injured party must give written notice within 180 days of the discovery of the injury to the governing body of that public entity or the attorney representing that entity. Failure to provide such notice will permanently bar an action against the public entity. Once written notice is given, any action against the public entity or its employee must be brought within the applicable statute of limitations.