DeMaria v. ICAO

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 26, 2025
• Docket: 25CA1484
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

25CA1484 DeMaria v ICAO 11-26-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA1484 Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado DD No. 10014-2025

David DeMaria,

Petitioner,

v.

Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado,

Respondent.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division III Dunn, Lipinsky, and Kuhn, JJ. PER CURIAM

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced November 26, 2025

David DeMaria, Pro Se

No Appearance for Respondent ¶1 David DeMaria appeals the final order of the Industrial Claim

Appeals Office (the Panel) affirming a hearing officer’s denial of his

request to backdate an unemployment insurance claim so he could

collect benefits from December 15, 2024, to January 11, 2025 (the

backdate period). We affirm the order.

I. Background

¶2 After separating from his employer on November 12, 2024,

DeMaria filed an unemployment insurance claim with the Division

of Unemployment Insurance Customer Service Center (the Division)

with an effective date of November 10, 2024. DeMaria did not

receive benefits for the weeks following his separation, however,

because he did not complete the “work search” section of the online

weekly payment request form. See Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Reg. 2.1.7,

7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2 (requiring the weekly submission of

continued claims to receive payment).

¶3 In March 2025, DeMaria asked the Division to backdate his

claim so he could receive unemployment benefits for the backdate

period. See Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Reg. 2.1.10.3, 7 Code Colo.

Regs. 1101-2 (providing that the Division may permit a change in

the first week of a reopened claim in certain circumstances). (The

1 Panel’s final order says that DeMaria’s appeal is from a “request to

backdate the reopened effective date of his claim for benefits” under

regulation 2.1.10.3).

¶4 A deputy for the Division denied DeMaria’s backdate request

because DeMaria had been “in control of the circumstances which

led to [his] untimeliness.”

¶5 DeMaria requested a hearing on the deputy’s determination.

At the hearing, DeMaria testified that nothing had prevented him

from filling out the work search section on his weekly payment

request, but he claimed that he was “unaware” that the work search

section “had to be documented.” DeMaria said, “It was not

apparent to me that that[] [was] a hard requirement.”

¶6 He admitted that he filed for unemployment insurance benefits

online and that he had internet access, phone service, and access

to transportation during the weeks he did not complete the work

search section. DeMaria also admitted that he completed the work

search section for one week in December 2024 and that he received

benefits for that week.

¶7 DeMaria testified that he did not submit the backdate request

until March 2025 because, although he realized in December 2024

2 he was not receiving payments, he tried dozens of times to reach

the Division by phone. He claimed it had been impossible “to reach

a live person in the office.” DeMaria testified that only after he went

to the Division in person in March 2025 did he learn that he

“apparently had not completed the weekly process” for the backdate

period.

¶8 At the hearing, the deputy testified that, although he is as

“sympathetic as possible” to situations involving claimant

confusion, the evidence did not support that “there was anything

beyond [DeMaria’s] control, preventing [him] from requesting

payment.” And while the deputy acknowledged it “may take

multiple attempts” to contact the Division, he noted that no call line

outages or “system issues” would have “reasonably prevent[ed]

[DeMaria] from getting in contact with the Division successfully.”

He added that claimants can “physical[ly] go[] to a Workforce Center

and us[e] those resources to get directly in contact with the

Division.”

¶9 The hearing officer affirmed the deputy’s determination,

finding that DeMaria “provided no reason he was not able to request

benefits for [the backdate period] other than he was not aware he

3 needed to complete the [work search] section of the request, which

is not a factor outside of [his] control.”

¶ 10 On review, the Panel affirmed the hearing officer’s decision.

II. Analysis

¶ 11 DeMaria contends that the Panel erred because it “did not

account for the fact there was [zero] phone support available to

assist with processing [his] unemployment claim.” But we must

affirm the Panel’s order because substantial evidence supports it.

¶ 12 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), C.R.S. 2025.

¶ 13 The Division may accept a request to backdate a reopened

claim, but “only if the individual establishes to the satisfaction of

the [D]ivision that [the individual] exercised no control over the

circumstances of the untimely filing.” Dep’t of Lab. & Emp.

Reg. 2.1.10.3, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2 (emphasis added). “Being

unaware of the need to timely file shall not be considered a factor

outside the individual’s control.” Id.

4 ¶ 14 After carefully reviewing the administrative record, including

the hearing transcript, we conclude that substantial evidence —

including DeMaria’s own testimony — supports the hearing officer’s

finding that nothing prevented DeMaria from completing the work

search section on his weekly payment request. His lack of

awareness that the work search section “had to be documented” is

not a factor outside his control. Id. Like all claimants for

unemployment benefits, DeMaria is presumed to know the content

of the unemployment statutes and regulations. See Boeheim v.

Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 23 P.3d 1247, 1249 (Colo. App. 2001).

¶ 15 And while DeMaria testified that he experienced difficulty

reaching the Division by telephone starting in December 2024, he

filed his claim online. He did not testify to any circumstances

beyond his control that prevented him from completing the work

search section online. Indeed, he successfully did so at least once

in December 2024, demonstrating that submitting a weekly

payment request with a completed work search section was within

his control. The regulations — which the Panel must apply as

written — bar DeMaria’s request to backdate his claim. See Dep’t of

Revenue v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 2019 CO 41, ¶ 25, 441 P.3d 1012,

5 1017 (holding that when a regulation’s language is clear and

unambiguous it must be applied as written).

III. Disposition

¶ 16 The Panel’s order is affirmed.