Kulkarni v. ICAO

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 18, 2025
• Docket: 25CA0959
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

25CA0959 Kulkarni v ICAO 09-18-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA0959 Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado DD No. 27802-2024

Chitragupt Kulkarni,

Petitioner,

v.

Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado,

Respondent.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division V Opinion by JUDGE YUN Freyre and Pawar, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced September 18, 2025

Chitragupt Kulkarni, Pro Se

No Appearance for Respondent ¶1 In this unemployment compensation benefits case, claimant

Chitragupt Kulkarni seeks review of a final order from the

Industrial Claim Appeals Office (the Panel). The Panel affirmed a

hearing officer’s decision denying Kulkarni’s request to backdate

the initial effective date of his benefits claim. We likewise affirm the

Panel’s order.

I. Background

¶2 Kulkarni separated from his employer on or about June 18,

2024. Initially, he was unaware that he could file for

unemployment compensation benefits. On September 1, 2024, he

filed his application for benefits.

¶3 In late September 2024, Kulkarni requested that his claim be

backdated to June 16, 2024. See Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Reg.

2.1.10.3, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2 (stating that a claim may be

backdated under certain circumstances). However, a deputy from

the Colorado Division of Unemployment Insurance (the Division)

denied his request, finding that Kulkarni had not shown that he

“exercised no control over the circumstance of the untimely filing.”

As a result, the deputy ruled that the effective date for Kulkarni’s

1 claim remained September 1, rendering him ineligible for benefits

prior to that date.

¶4 Kulkarni subsequently requested a hearing on the deputy’s

decision. At the hearing, the hearing officer inquired why Kulkarni

did not file his claim immediately after his job separation on

June 18. Kulkarni responded that, as a recent immigrant, he was

unfamiliar with the unemployment system and unaware of his

rights and benefits. He also testified that he was in a “state of

shock and emotional distress” because it was “an involuntary

separation” that he was “not prepared for.” Additionally, he no

longer had access to the employer-issued laptop. Although he

could access the internet on his phone, the connection was “spotty.”

When asked about using a public library, Kulkarni testified that he

“did not even leave the house” due to “extreme shock and emotional

distress.” He also noted that he had no car until the last week of

August. When asked how he became aware of the option to file a

claim, Kulkarni testified that he became aware of it only after

speaking with a friend.

¶5 The hearing officer upheld the deputy’s decision and denied

Kulkarni’s request to backdate his claim. Kulkarni appealed to the

2 Panel, contending that the hearing officer did not consider his

status as a recent immigrant unfamiliar with the unemployment

benefits system. The Panel affirmed the hearing officer’s decision.

II. Standard of Review

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

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

obtained through 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.

III. Analysis

¶7 An individual may request that the Division backdate a claim

so that previous weeks of unemployment benefits may be received.

However, the Division may backdate the first week of a claim “only

if the individual establishes to the satisfaction of the Division that

he or she exercised no control over the untimely filing.” Dep’t of

Lab. & Emp. Reg. 2.1.10.3, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2. The

regulation further clarifies that “[b]eing unaware of the need to

timely file is not considered a factor outside the individual’s

control.” Id.

3 ¶8 In his appeal to this court, Kulkarni reiterates the same

arguments he presented to the Panel. He claims that he had no

control over the circumstances of his late filing because he was

completely unaware of the unemployment system. He also

contends that what a “reasonably prudent individual born and

raised in this country” would do differs from what someone born

and raised elsewhere would do. Kulkarni cites no legal authority for

this proposition. See Woodridge Condo. Ass’n v. Lo Viento Blanco,

LLC, 2020 COA 34, ¶ 44 (noting that we do not address a bald legal

proposition presented without argument or legal authority).

¶9 Like the hearing officer and the Panel, we conclude that

Kulkarni “exercised control over the circumstances of his failure to

file a claim for benefits” and that he “did not act as a reasonably

prudent individual would have under the same or similar

circumstances.” As the Panel explained:

There were no attempts made by the claimant in June 2024, after his separation, through the beginning of September 2024 to contact the Division to make inquiries about his rights. The claimant had access to a phone, and internet between his separation in June 2024 and September 1, 2024. His failure to file for unemployment benefits during that period was within his control. The applicable section of

4 the law provides that being unaware of the need to timely file shall not be considered a factor outside [individual]’s control.

Because the Panel’s affirmance of the hearing officer’s decision is

supported by substantial evidence in the record and the plain

language of the applicable regulations, we likewise affirm the

Panel’s decision.

IV. Disposition

¶ 10 The Panel’s order is affirmed.

JUDGE FREYRE and JUDGE PAWAR concur.