Smallwood v. ICAO

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 18, 2025
• Docket: 25CA0210
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

25CA0210 Smallwood v ICAO 09-18-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA0210 Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado DD No. 32357-2023

Lillie Smallwood,

Petitioner,

v.

Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado,

Respondent.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division V Opinion by JUDGE PAWAR Freyre and Yun, JJ., concur

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

Lillie Smallwoed, Pro Se

No Appearance for Respondent ¶1 In this unemployment benefits case, Lillie Smallwood seeks

review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel)

dismissing as untimely her appeal of the hearing officer’s decision

denying her unemployment benefits. We affirm the Panel’s order.

I. Background

¶2 Smallwood established a valid initial claim for unemployment

benefits in September 2022, after separating from her longtime

employment with Terumo BCT Inc. Unable to find suitable

employment, Smallwood filed a new claim for unemployment

benefits in November 2023. On November 9, 2023, a deputy with

the Division of Unemployment Insurance (Division) concluded that

Smallwood was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits on her

new claim because she had not earned $2,000 in employment since

establishing her previous claim. See § 8-73-107(2), C.R.S. 2025

(“An individual who has received compensation during the

individual’s benefit year is required to have worked for an

employer . . . since the beginning of such year and to have earned

at least two thousand dollars as [wages] for such employment in

order to qualify for compensation in the next benefit year.”).

1 ¶3 Smallwood appealed the deputy’s decision and later appeared

with representation before a hearing officer. In a decision mailed to

Smallwood on January 17, 2024, the hearing officer found that

Smallwood did not earn at least $2,000 in employment as section 8-

73-107(2) requires. Accordingly, the hearing officer concluded that

Smallwood was ineligible for unemployment benefits and affirmed

the deputy’s decision.

¶4 However, considering Smallwood’s claim that she earned at

least $2,000 in wages since the deputy’s November 9, 2023,

decision, the hearing officer “remand[ed] this matter to the Division

for further investigation into whether [Smallwood] ha[d] earned

sufficient wages to qualify for a new unemployment insurance claim

and, if appropriate, a new decision.”

¶5 The hearing officer’s ruling advised Smallwood of her appeal

rights and, more specifically, warned that an appeal to the Panel

must be received within twenty days from the date the decision was

mailed. Smallwood filed her appeal on January 7, 2025, which was

eleven months past the February 6, 2024, deadline. Ultimately, the

Panel did not find good cause to excuse Smallwood’s late filing and

dismissed her appeal as untimely.

2 II. Analysis

¶6 Smallwood, now self-represented, states in her notice of appeal

and opening brief that she appeals because she “did not receive a

letter after a phone conference of your determination.” Based on

our careful review of the record, Smallwood seemingly reasserts

that she never received notice from the Division about an

investigation into her wages earned after the deputy’s November 9,

2023, determination. But, importantly, the issue of Smallwood’s

eligibility for benefits for wages earned after November 9, 2023, is

distinct from the issue decided by the hearing officer — namely,

that Smallwood did not earn sufficient wages between her initial

claim in September 2022 and the deputy’s decision on November 9,

2023. And we emphasize that the hearing officer remanded the

issue of Smallwood’s wages earned following November 9, 2023, to

the Division for further investigation.

¶7 However, the only issue the Panel addressed — and thus the

only issue that we may review — is whether there was good cause

for the Panel to accept Smallwood’s late appeal of the hearing

officer’s decision mailed January 17, 2024. See § 8-74-107, C.R.S.

2025 (granting appellate court jurisdiction to review only the Panel’s

3 decision); People in Interest of M.B., 2020 COA 13, ¶ 14 (generally,

an appellate court only reviews matters on which the lower court

ruled in the order being appealed).

¶8 Smallwood does not discuss the Panel’s decision or challenge

the Panel’s conclusion that she lacked good cause for her untimely

appeal of the hearing officer’s decision. As a result, we do not

address whether the Panel abused its discretion in concluding that

she lacked good cause for the late filing. See Minshall v. Johnston,

2018 COA 44, ¶ 21 (While we must interpret pro se arguments

liberally, “liberal construction does not include inventing arguments

not made by the pro se party.”). Consequently, we do not disturb

the Panel’s order.

III. Disposition

¶9 The order is affirmed.

JUDGE FREYRE and JUDGE YUN concur.