Mosley-Stichter v. ICAO

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 12, 2026
• Docket: 25CA0994
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

25CA0994 Mosley-Stichter v ICAO 02-12-2026

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA0994 Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado WC No. 5-258-854

Cherise M. Mosley-Stichter,

Petitioner,

v.

Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado and Denver Public Schools,

Respondents.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division VII Opinion by JUDGE TOW Moultrie and Berger*, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced February 12, 2026

Cherise M. Mosley-Stichter, Pro Se

No Appearance for Respondent Industrial Claim Appeals Office

Ritsema Law, LLC, Alana McKenna, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent Denver Public Schools

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2025. ¶1 In this worker’s compensation action, Cherise M. Mosley-

Stichter appeals an order denying her requests for additional

temporary disability benefits. We affirm.

I. Background

A. February 2021 Injury

¶2 Mosley-Stichter worked for Denver Public Schools (Employer)

as a paraprofessional. On February 17, 2021, she suffered a work

injury to her right knee (February 2021 injury). As the record in a

companion case, 25CA0107, shows, her authorized treating

physician, Dr. Jay Reinsma, diagnosed a right knee strain.1 He

prescribed various treatments and assigned her work restrictions to

accommodate healing.

¶3 On June 22, 2021, Dr. Fredric Zimmerman determined that

Mosley-Stichter had reached maximum medical improvement

(MMI), and Dr. Reinsma agreed. They prescribed permanent work

restrictions and maintenance care.

1 We may take judicial notice of court files in related proceedings.

See Harriman v. Cabela’s Inc., 2016 COA 43, ¶ 64.

1 ¶4 In August 2021, Employer filed a Final Admission of Liability,

admitting, as relevant here, that Mosley-Stichter reached MMI on

June 22, 2021.

B. September 2021 Injury

¶5 The following month, Mosley-Stichter reported to Dr. Reinsma

that she reinjured her knee on or around September 20, 2021,

while at work (September 2021 injury). Significantly, she did not

file a new workers’ compensation claim at that time. Dr. Reinsma

rescinded his MMI finding based on the reinjury. At a follow-up

appointment a few days later, Dr. Reinsma noted that Mosley-

Stichter was not working at all, because “no light duty work is

available.”

C. TTD Benefits

¶6 Employer reopened the February 2021 claim — the only

workers’ compensation claim that existed because Mosley-Stichter

had not filed a new claim based on the September 2021 injury. In

October 2021, Employer filed a General Admission of Liability,

admitting liability for temporary total disability (TTD) benefits based

on an average weekly wage of $763.74, beginning September 21,

2021. Employer paid TTD benefits through March 14, 2022, and

2 began making permanent partial disability payments on March 15,

2022, when Dr. Reinsma determined that Mosley-Stichter had

again reached MMI.

D. New Workers’ Compensation Claim

¶7 In August 2022, Mosely-Stichter underwent a division-

sponsored independent medical exam with Dr. Justin Green. He

concluded that Mosley-Stichter had reached MMI for the initial

injury on June 22, 2021. Employer filed a Final Admission of

Liability, admitting liability consistent with Dr. Green’s report.

¶8 Over a year later, in December 2023, Mosley-Stichter filed a

new workers’ compensation claim, asserting that the September

2021 injury constituted a new injury. Employer filed a General

Admission of Liability admitting liability only for medical benefits —

not lost wages.

¶9 Dr. Stephen Danahey became Mosley-Stichter’s authorized

treating physician in connection with this new claim. On

November 15, 2024, Dr. Danahey opined that Mosley-Stichter had

reached MMI as to the second injury on March 15, 2022 — well

over a year before she filed the new claim.

3 E. Hearing

¶ 10 At Mosley-Stichter’s request, an administrative law judge (ALJ)

held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether she was entitled

to additional temporary disability benefits in connection with the

September 2021 injury. Mosley-Stichter did not dispute that she

had reached MMI for the February 2021 injury on June 22, 2021,

and that she reached MMI for the September 2021 injury on March

15, 2022. The ALJ found that Mosley-Stichter indeed lost wages

“following the September 20, 2021[,] work injury,” that she “was

entitled to TTD benefits for the period of September 21, 2021[,] until

March 14, 2022,” and that Employer “paid [her] TTD benefits for

this entire period.” The ALJ noted that, although she “sustained

two injuries, she sustained one wage loss, for which she was

compensated,” and that awarding additional temporary disability

benefits “would result in [her] being compensated for more than her

actual lost wages.”

¶ 11 Mosley-Stichter appealed to the Panel, which issued a

comprehensive order affirming the ALJ’s order.

4 II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review and Legal Principles

¶ 12 Under section 8-43-308, C.R.S. 2025, we may not disturb the

ALJ’s factual findings when “supported by substantial evidence,”

and we may only set aside the Panel’s decision if (1) the factual

findings (as adopted by the Panel) are not sufficient to permit

appellate review; (2) the record reflects unresolved conflicts in the

evidence; (3) the factual findings do not support the order; or (4) the

award or denial of benefits is not supported by applicable law.

¶ 13 A claimant is entitled to TTD benefits when a work-related

injury prevents her from working; she is entitled to temporary

partial disability (TPD) benefits when her work-related injury results

in her working modified duty for less pay. Anderson v. Longmont

Toyota, Inc., 102 P.3d 323, 327 (Colo. 2004); Magnetic Eng’g, Inc. v.

Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 5 P.3d 385, 390 (Colo. App. 2000).

Temporary disability benefits serve to offset wages lost on account

of the work-related injury. See Anderson, 102 P.3d at 327

(discussing TTD benefits).

¶ 14 An employee’s entitlement to temporary benefits ends where,

as pertinent here, the injured employee reaches MMI.

5 §§ 8-42-105(3)(a), 8-42-106(2)(a), C.R.S. 2025. The MMI

determination signifies that the employee’s condition “has become

stable in that no further treatment is reasonably expected to

improve the condition, and that the permanent effects of the injury

can be ascertained.” Loofbourrow v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 321

P.3d 548, 555-56 (Colo. App. 2011). Once an employee reaches

MMI, any continuing wage loss “is now permanent and is to be

compensated by the claimant’s receipt of permanent benefits under

§ 8-42-107, C.R.S. [2025], not by the continued payment of

[temporary disability benefits].” City of Colo. Springs v. Indus. Claim

Appeals Off., 954 P.2d 637, 639 (Colo. App. 1997).

B. Double Recovery

¶ 15 As we understand Mosley-Stichter’s first argument on appeal,

she asserts that, even though she was not entitled to TTD benefits

for the February 2021 injury (because she had reached MMI in

June 2021 and thus was ineligible for TTD benefits for the period

beginning in September 2021) but nonetheless received them

between September 21, 2021 and March 14, 2022, Employer

should have paid her temporary total or partial disability benefits

for the September 2021 injury but failed to do so. In other words,

6 she contends that Employer mistakenly paid her TTD benefits for

the February 2021 injury and should pay her again for the

September 2021 injury during the same time period.

¶ 16 As the Colorado Supreme Court has noted, workers’

compensation benefits “are designed to prevent destitution of an

injured worker.” Anderson, 102 P.3d at 327. To that end,

temporary disability benefits function to offset the wages a worker

lost due to a work-related injury. Id. They do not serve to facilitate

a windfall for a claimant. See id.

¶ 17 Mosley-Stichter received TTD benefits offsetting her wage loss

from the time she suffered the September 2021 injury until she

achieved MMI for that injury on March 15, 2022. She does not

argue that she received less than the statutorily mandated amount.

¶ 18 That Employer attributed those benefits to Mosley-Stichter’s

then-sole worker’s compensation claim, based on the February

2021 injury, is immaterial. Recall, Mosley-Stichter did not file a

distinct workers’ compensation claim for the September 2021 injury

until December 2023 — well over two years after the injury

occurred, and well after the time period in question. Thus, between

September 2021 and March 2022, Employer could not have

7 attributed temporary disability benefits to the September 2021

injury, because, at that time, all parties were treating the injury as

a reinjury of the February one.

¶ 19 Therefore, awarding Mosley-Stichter additional TTD benefits

for that time period would result in her receiving, in total, over 133

percent of her wages lost during that period. See § 8-42-105(1).

Even awarding Mosley-Stichter additional TPD benefits, which she

seeks in the alternative, would result in her receiving more than the

maximum offset section 8-42-105(1) provides for a person totally

unable to work. See §§ 8-42-105(1), 8-42-106(1). That is not an

offset; it is a windfall, and we cannot and do not interpret the

statutes to allow it.

C. Post-MMI Benefits

¶ 20 Mosley-Stichter also argues that she should have received

temporary disability (total or partial) benefits through October 2024

because Dr. Danahey opined as to her MMI date for the September

2021 injury in November 2024 — even though he determined she

reached MMI as of March 15, 2022. Simply put, Mosley-Stichter

asserts that she is entitled to temporary disability benefits for an

8 additional thirty-two months beyond her MMI date for the

September 2021 injury. This argument similarly fails.

¶ 21 As noted above, a claimant is no longer entitled to receive

temporary disability benefits once she reaches MMI.

§§ 8-42-105(3)(a), 8-42-106(2)(a). Indeed, when a physician

determines MMI retroactively, an employer may recover any

overpayment of temporary disability benefits resulting from

payments made between the date of MMI and the later date when

the physician opined on MMI. § 8-43-303(1), C.R.S. 2025.

Moreover, “[f]or an overpayment to result, it is not necessary that

the overpayment exist at the time the claimant received the

disability . . . benefits.” § 8-40-201(15.5), C.R.S. 2025.

¶ 22 Here, Mosley-Stichter acknowledges that she reached MMI on

March 15, 2022. Even if Employer had paid her temporary

disability benefits between that date and the date Dr. Danahey

established the March MMI date, it would have been able to recover

that overpayment. It would make no sense to read the statute to

require such an overpayment in the first place, only to turn around

and subject that payment to recovery by Employer. Thus, we

discern no error in the Panel’s holding that Mosley-Stichter is not

9 entitled to receive back-temporary disability benefits for any period

beyond March 15, 2022.

III. Disposition

¶ 23 We affirm the Panel’s order.

JUDGE MOULTRIE and JUDGE BERGER concur.