Hassan v. ICAO
Hassan v. ICAO
Hassan v. ICAO
Opinion
24CA0823 Hassan v ICAO 09-05-2024
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 24CA0823
Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado
DD No. 8245-2024
Aden Hassan,
Petitioner,
v.
Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado and Division of
Unemployment Insurance Customer Service Center,
Respondents.
ORDER AFFIRMED
Division V
Opinion by JUDGE GROVE
Freyre and Lum, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced September 5, 2024
Aden Hassan, Pro Se
No Appearance for Respondent
1
¶ 1 In this unemployment benefits case, claimant, Aden Hassan,
seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office
(Panel). The Panel affirmed the hearing officer’s decision dismissing
Hassan’s administrative appeal after he failed to appear for two
hearings. We affirm the Panel’s order.
I. Background
¶ 2 Hassan applied for unemployment benefits. In February 2024,
a deputy for the Division of Unemployment Insurance (Division)
determined that Hassan was not eligible to backdate his claim for
benefits due to untimeliness. Hassan appealed the deputy’s
decision, and the Division set a hearing for March 14, 2024.
Hassan failed to participate in the hearing, and his appeal was
dismissed.
¶ 3 After Hassan emailed the Division a request for a new hearing,
the Division set a second hearing for April 15, 2024. Hassan did
not participate in that hearing either, and his appeal was dismissed
for failing to participate in a second hearing. Hassan appealed the
dismissal to the Panel, admitting that he did not check in for the
first hearing, and that when he tried to check in for the second
hearing, “it did not go through.”
2
¶ 4 The Panel affirmed the dismissal of Hassan’s administrative
appeal, holding that under Department of Labor & Employment
Regulation 12.1.3.5, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2, if the party who
appeals a decision fails to participate for two scheduled hearings as
directed, “the appeal shall be dismissed and the deputy’s decision
shall become final.” The Panel concluded that the hearing officer
correctly applied Regulation 12.1.3.5, and that the deputy’s
decision was final.
II. Analysis
¶ 5 In this appeal, Hassan asserts that he missed the first hearing
after unsuccessfully attempting to check in by phone. He alleges he
missed the second hearing because his attempt to check in online
did not go through. He states that his “technology knowledge is
limited,” and that “navigating the unemployment portal poses a
significant challenge.” He also contends that he “found himself
without a job” and did not receive his last two hours’ compensation.
¶ 6 After reviewing the record and applying the applicable
standard of review, we uphold the Panel’s determination that
Hassan was not entitled to a third hearing. See § 8-74-107(6)(c)-(d),
C.R.S. 2024 (appellate court may set aside a Panel’s determination
3
if the findings of fact do not support the decision or the decision is
erroneous as a matter of law); Huddy v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off.,
894 P.2d 60, 62 (Colo. App. 1995) (appellate court’s review of
unemployment compensation orders is limited to grounds provided
in section 8-74-107).
¶ 7 Regulation 11.2.9.2 states that “[p]arties may be required to
register for their hearing prior to the scheduled date and time of the
hearing. Registration shall be considered part of the hearing
process and failure to register for a scheduled hearing shall
constitute a failure to appear.” Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Reg. 11.2.9.2,
7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2.
¶ 8 Hassan admits he was aware of the requirement to register by
checking in, either by phone or online, before his hearings. In his
administrative appeal to the Panel, he admitted that he did not
check in for the first hearing. In this appeal, he asserts that an
operator told him he was checked in but then later told him he was
not. He then explains that, because he did not want to rely on the
phone process for the second hearing, he attempted to check in
online for the second hearing. That attempt was unsuccessful.
4
¶ 9 If an appeal is dismissed because of an appealing party’s
failure to appear and the party requests a new hearing, “a
rebuttable presumption of good cause shall be established and a
new hearing shall be scheduled.” Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Reg.
12.1.3.4, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2. In this case, good cause was
presumed for Hassan’s failure to successfully check in for his first
hearing. But if the appealing party fails to participate as directed in
the first setting of a hearing on a deputy’s decision and then
subsequently fails to participate as directed in the second setting of
a hearing, “good cause may not be established” and “the appeal
shall be dismissed and the deputy’s decision shall become final.
Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Reg. 12.1.3.5, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2.
¶ 10 After Hassan’s failed attempt to check in for his first hearing,
he was granted a second hearing. That hearing notice, mailed to
Hassan on March 22, 2024, provided, in boldface type with portions
in all capital letters, the following:
HEARING INFORMATION FOR CLAIMANT AND EMPLOYER
You must CHECK IN for your hearing AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE and NO LATER than 2
P.M. the DAY BEFORE YOUR HEARING. You
will need the DOCKET NUMBER in the upper
right corner of this notice. We encourage you
5
to complete the check in process THE SAME
DAY THAT YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE.
¶ 11 The hearing notice also described the procedure for checking
in online and provided a telephone number to call if unable to do
so. Additionally, the notice warned Hassan in two places that
failing to timely check in would result in the dismissal of his appeal.
Finally, the notice stated that this was a second hearing scheduled
due to the failure of Hassan to appear at a first hearing.
¶ 12 The Panel noted that it emailed questions to Hassan, which he
answered on April 23, 2024. He admitted that he received the
second hearing notice at the “end of March.” He stated that he
checked in before 2 p.m. on April 14, 2024, but when asked the
exact time, he did not provide a time. He contended that he “did
not know how to check in accurately.”
¶ 13 The Panel concluded that, while Hassan claimed he checked in
timely, a dismissal nevertheless was issued because he had not
registered by 2 p.m. that day or any day prior. The Panel also
observed that “whether good cause for missing the second hearing
is lacking or not, Regulation 12.1.3.5 provides that even if there is
‘good cause,’ missing a second hearing may not be excused.” The
6
hearing officer correctly applied Regulation 12.1.3.5, and the
deputy’s decision therefore is final.
¶ 14 After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the Panel’s
decision. The Panel was required to apply the plain language of the
applicable regulations. 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 Hassan
failed to appear at two hearings, the regulations required that his
appeal be dismissed. We conclude that the Panel correctly applied
the regulations to uphold the dismissal of Hassan’s administrative
appeal.
III. Disposition
¶ 15 The Panel’s order is affirmed.
JUDGE FREYRE and JUDGE LUM concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.