Wood v. ICAO

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 14, 2025
• Docket: 25CA0708
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

25CA0708 Wood v ICAO 08-14-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA0708 Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado DD No. 1013-2025

Jackson Harris Wood,

Petitioner,

v.

Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado,

Respondent.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division IV Opinion by JUDGE GOMEZ Freyre and Meirink, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced August 14, 2025

Jackson Harris Wood, Pro Se

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

Jackson Wood, seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Claim

Appeals Office (the Panel). The Panel affirmed a hearing officer’s

decision denying Wood’s request to (1) backdate the initial effective

date of his benefits claim to August 18, 2024 and (2) backdate the

reopen effective date to September 29, 2024. We affirm the Panel’s

order.

I. Background

¶2 Wood was laid off from his employment in August 2024. He

applied for benefits at the end of September, but did not make

continuing requests for benefit payments, and his account

automatically closed. See Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Reg. 2.1.7, 7 Code

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

claims).

¶3 On October 13, 2024, Wood reopened his claim. Then, in

January 2025, he requested that his claim be backdated to August

18, 2024. See Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Reg. 2.1.10.3, 7 Code Colo.

Regs. 1101-2 (providing that a claim may be backdated in certain

circumstances). A deputy for the Colorado Division of

Unemployment Insurance (the Division) denied Wood’s request,

1 finding that Wood hadn’t established that he “exercised no control

over the circumstance of the untimely filing.” The deputy therefore

found that Wood was not eligible for benefits from August 18

through October 12.

¶4 Wood requested a hearing on the deputy’s determination,

asserting that when he filed his claim in September, he didn’t

understand that he had to request a payment each week. He

initially tried, without success, to call the Division to speak to

someone about the process. Then, after October 15, he tried to call

to let the Division know that he was employed again, but each time

he tried, “all lines [were] busy.” He “finally got through” in January

2025 and was “told it could be backdated.” He then gave the

Division “all the information needed including the weeks [he] was

unemployed,” but his request was “denied for being untimely.”

¶5 A hearing officer held a hearing in February 2025. The

hearing officer asked Wood why he didn’t initially file his

unemployment claim earlier, and Wood responded that he was

looking for employment and “wasn’t even thinking about

unemployment” until the end of September when he hadn’t had any

success in finding a job. Wood explained that he “put in the claim”

2 at the end of September, but then got a job with a new employer on

October 14. Wood testified that it was his first claim for

unemployment compensation benefits and he was unfamiliar with

some of the requirements.

¶6 The hearing officer affirmed the deputy’s determination, and

denied Wood’s request to backdate the initial effective date of the

claim (from September 29 to August 18) and the effective reopen

date of the claim (from October 13 to September 29). Wood

appealed to the Panel, stating that he disagreed with the decision to

“completely deny [his] unemployment claim.” The Panel affirmed

the hearing officer’s decision.

II. Standard of Review

¶7 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 don’t support the

decision; or (4) the decision is erroneous as a matter of law. § 8-74-

107(6), C.R.S. 2024.

3 III. Analysis

¶8 In this appeal, Wood states that his “case comes down to two

separate parts,” which we interpret to mean both the initial effective

date and the reopen effective date. We address each in turn.

A. Initial Effective Date

¶9 Initially, Wood didn’t apply for unemployment compensation

benefits because he was “immediately seeking work.” The hearing

officer and the Panel determined that this reason was not a

circumstance outside of Wood’s control. After reviewing the record,

we agree.

¶ 10 The Division may allow backdating of the first week of a claim

“only if the individual establishes to the satisfaction of the Division

that [they] exercised no control over the untimely filing.” Dep’t of

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

2.1.10.3 also states that “[b]eing unaware of the need to timely file

shall not be considered a factor outside the individual’s control.”

¶ 11 Because the record supports the hearing officer’s finding that

Wood was in control of the timing of his claim, we find no error in

the denial of Wood’s request to backdate the initial effective date.

4 B. Reopen Effective Date

¶ 12 From the record, we discern that a claim was opened for Wood

when he applied for benefits on September 30, with an effective date

of September 29. Because Wood failed to request payments,

however, his account automatically closed. He was later able to

reopen the claim, but with an effective date of October 13, and his

request to backdate that reopening to September 29 was denied.

¶ 13 On appeal, Wood asserts that he didn’t understand that he

had to request payment for each week he was unemployed. He

acknowledged at the hearing that he was able to log on to the

Division’s website at the end of September to successfully file a

claim. The hearing officer asked him, “[D]id you go over the

instructions on how to claim benefits? I mean, did you go through

the website and read the instructions?” Wood responded, “I went

through it all. Like I said, I filed the claim. I did the identity

verification, the wage verification. . . . I just was unaware that I had

to somehow request payment for each week.”

¶ 14 A claimant seeking payment of unemployment benefits must

file continued claims on a weekly basis by interactive voice response

system or by electronic means, unless the Division permits a

5 continued claim to be filed by mail or in person because filing by

other means would cause undue hardship for an individual. Dep’t

of Lab. & Emp. Reg. 2.1.7, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2.

¶ 15 The applicable regulations allow the Division, in its discretion,

to permit backdating of initial or reopened claims only when the

claimant “exercised no control” over the circumstances of the

untimely filing of the claim. In this case, Woods didn’t explain any

circumstances beyond his control, but stated only that he was

unaware of the need to file continuing requests for benefits.

Generally, having requested benefits, claimants are presumed to

know the contents of the unemployment statutes and regulations.

See Boeheim v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 23 P.3d 1247, 1249 (Colo.

App. 2001). We agree that Wood’s failure to completely read and

understand all the instructions, including the weekly requirement

to request payment, was not a circumstance beyond his control.

¶ 16 The hearing officer and the Panel were required to apply the

plain language of the applicable regulations. See Dep’t of Revenue

v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 2019 CO 41, ¶ 25 (when a regulation’s

language is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied as written).

Because we ultimately find that the Panel’s affirmance of the

6 hearing officer’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and

not erroneous, we must affirm the Panel’s decision.

IV. Disposition

¶ 17 The Panel’s order is affirmed.

JUDGE FREYRE and JUDGE MEIRINK concur.