Whether 8-43-307, C.R.S. (1994 Supp) and 8-74-107, C.R.S. (1986 1994 Supp) and C.A.R. 46.4 and 46.7 unconstitutionally deny workers compensation parties access to the courts

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether 8-43-307, C.R.S. (1994 Supp) and 8-74-107, C.R.S. (1986 1994 Supp) and C.A.R. 46.4 and 46.7 unconstitutionally deny workers compensation parties access to the courts in violation of the United States Constitution amendment XIV and the Colorado Constitution, article 2, section 6 and 25? 2. Whether Court of Appeals and Supreme Court correctly interpreted C.A.R. 46.4 and 46.7 to limit Claimants right to a rehearing in light of C.A.R. 52 which provides that no “Writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court shall issue unlesss a petition for rehearing has been filed in the Court of Appeals”? 3. Whether the recodification of workers comp act of 1990 in repealing C.R.S. 853-119 and replacing it with 8-43-307 violated claimants rights to file an appeal by limiting his right to certiorari to the Court of Appeals of a ICAO decision while maintaining a review on the merits in unemployment cases decided by ICAO? 4. Whether the Colorado Appellate Rules 46 and 52 are internally conflicting and should be amended to provide for rehearing if certiorari is denied by the Court of Appeals? 5. Whether C.A.R. 46(a) belies the mandatory nature of article II, section 6. Review of a certiorari petition is not sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement of access to the courts which mandate review on the merits? 6. Whether the enactment of C.R.S. 8-74-107 that provide unemployment claimants with a constitutional procedure for judicial review on the merits violate workers compensation claimants constitutional rights to a constitutional procedure for a judicial review of a ICAO decision on the merits? 7. Whether the procedures for review in section 8-43-307 and 8-74-107 are unconstitutional and the rehearing provisions in the Colorado Appellate Rules are internally conflicting? 8. Whether section 8-43-307 violate his constitutional right to access to the state courts and the review and role of the ICAO in reviewing the AU decision provide for a reversal? 9. Whether Claimant has proven by clear and convincing evidence the DIME opinion was incorrect and Court of Appeals Rule 38 should apply? IL. . 10. Whether Claimant has proven entitlement to disability benefits by prepondere nce of the evidence and should be granted Defendants 7/3/2018. Motion for Specific Statement of Penalties from PAL) Barbo, 12/7/2017., 1/24/2018. and 5/22/2018. and PALI Broniak 7/28/2018. Court orders and Permanent total Disability, Malpractice, Negligence, Bad Faith Unfair Dealing. Acceptance and Surrender, $170,000,000. and attorney fees to cure said wrongdoing? 11. Whether as a result of the guarantee of access to the courts, parties are constitutionally entitled to judicial review of an administrative agency's decisions that affect their substantive statutory rights.? LIST OF ALL PARTIES All parties appear in the caption of the case cover page. Related Cases Rule 40.2 1. Larry E. Webser v. ICAO, and Czarnowski display service and Trumbull Insurance _ Company. Case. #18CA714. 2. Larry E. Webster v. ICAO and Czarnowski display service & Trumbull Insurance Company. Case. #2020CA1529. Published: W.C. No. 5-009-761-007. HW. TABLE OF CONTENT Question Presented For Review I