Wilson v. ICAO, 02CA2140 (August 14, 2003): Claimant sustained an injury to her back in 2000 and reached maximum medical improvement in 2001. Claimant and employer each hired an independent medical examiner (IME) to rate claimant's impairment. Claimant's IME gave claimant a 38% rating, including a 5% rating for specific disorders and 13% for lost motion of the lumbar spine. Employer's IME gave claimant a 25% rating and did not include a rating for the lumbar spine because he concluded it was not work-related. Claimant then underwent a Division-sponsored independent medical examination (DIME). The DIME gave claimant a 29% rating, which included 5% for specific disorders and 2% lost motion of the lumbar spine.
  Claimant tried to overcome the DIME's impairment rating as it pertained to lumbar range of motion. Claimant's IME testified that the DIME physician's lumbar impairment rating was invalid because he failed to record certain measurements on the impairment worksheet and failed to use the dual inclinometer method of measuring range of motion as prescribed by the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected the testimony of claimant's IME and found that claimant failed to overcome the DIME's impairment rating by clear and convincing evidence.
  The court of appeals affirmed. The court held that there was substantial evidence that the DIME physician used the proper methods to measure lumbar range of motion, and the failure of the DIME physician to record certain measurements on the ratings worksheet does not require the ALJ to conclude that the measurements were not done, or done improperly.

Dee Enterprises v. ICAO, 02CA2040 (July 31, 2003): Employer appealed an order that claimant sustained an industrial injury and was entitled to benefits. Employer argued that C.R.S. §§ 8-43-201 and 8-43-301 are unconstitutional because they violate the doctrine of separation of powers as well as the requirement that district courts have original jurisdiction in civil cases. These statutes confer jurisdiction on ALJs to hear and decide workers' compensation matters, and provides the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (ICAO) with jurisdiction to review the ALJs' orders.
  The court of appeals rejected employer's argument. The court held that the determinations of ALJs and the Panel lack judicial finality because they are not enforceable by execution or other proceedings until a district court enters a binding judgment thereon. Thus, the statutes do not undermine the purpose of Article III of the Colorado Constitution by preventing the judicial branch of government from exercising power that is essential to its proper functioning. The court concluded that granting ALJs and ICAO the task of hearing and deciding workers' compensation matters does not diminish the likelihood of impartial decision-making or threaten the judiciary's role. Review by the court of the ICAO's final orders for errors of law and abuse of discretion is sufficient to protect the proper exercise of judicial function.