The Office of Administrative Courts (OAC) in the Department of Personnel &, Administration is Colorado's centralized administrative court system with authority to decide disputes regarding workers' compensation, human services, licensing, and a variety of other cases. OAC conducts administrative hearings for a number of state agencies, including the Division of Workers' Compensation. OAC offices have administrative law judges and staff members who are responsible for handling the workers' compensation hearings from the time of application for hearing until final disposition of the hearing. Over the course of a year, OAC receives many thousands of applications for hearings on workers' compensation claims.
The need to modify rule 1 CCR 104-3 Rule 21 is so it comports with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-7 and 28 C.R.R, Part 42, Subpart C (Title VI) concerning limited English proficient (LEP) Individuals.
This rulemaking addresses an earlier emergency rulemaking regarding the same subject.
The executive Director is exercising her rulemaking authority as granted under §24-4-103, C.R.S. et seq., §24-30-1001, C.R.S. et seq., as well as §24-50.3-104(3)(a) and (3)(g), C.R.S., to track changes to the Worker' Compensation Act (§8-40-101 et seq., C.R.S.).
Click on the appropriate link below to view the Notice of Hearing, Basis &, Purpose, Redline, and Changes Accepted versions of the proposed permanent rule.
- Redlined Rule
Download PDF version of Redlined Rule
OAC Rule 21. Interpreters.
A.
All proceedings shall be conducted in English.A party who is limited English proficientdoes not adequately speak or understand English, or any party who calls a witness who is limited English proficientdoes notadequately speak or understand English,may request that the OAC provide a foreign language interpreter for the hearing.must arrange for a foreign language interpreter to be present at any hearing.The OAC shall not provide foreign language interpreters.B. A party who is limited English proficient may provide their own interpreter, so long as the interpreter meets the qualifications of O.A.C.R.P. Rule 21.C below.
BC. Immediately prior to the commencement of the hearing, any interpreter must review the “Code of
Conduct for Interpreters in Administrative Hearings” and agree in writing to abide by its
provisions.
- Notice
Download PDF version of Notice
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
To: Secretary of State; All State Government Departments, Agencies, Institutions and Other Interested Parties
From: Kara Veitch, Executive Director Department of Personnel & Administration
Date: June13,2019
Subject: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF PERMANENT RULES
The Executive Director of the Department of Personnel & Administration (DPA) will hold a public hearing on July 23, 2019, to consider permanent adoption of procedural rule 1 CCR 104-3, Rule 21 for the Office of Administrative Courts Worker's Compensation hearings. This hearing will address emergency rules implemented on May 24, 2019. The July 23, 2019 public hearing will commence at 10:00 a.m. in Room 104, First Floor, at 1525 Sherman Street. All
interested persons are urged to attend this public hearing and to submit written comments for consideration concerning the proposed rules.The Hearing Officer will take comments as follows:
In order to facilitate review of written comments by the Hearing Officer, all interested parties are strongly encouraged to submit their written comments prior to the hearing;
Written comments submitted prior to the hearing must be submitted to Doug Platt at 1525 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203 or via email at doug.platt@state.co.us on before 5:00 p.m. on July 16, 2019.
All written comments submitted on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 16, 2019, will be posted on the DPA website and linked to the Office of Administrative Courts website, on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 17, 2019.
Any written comments submitted after 5:00 p.m. on July 16, 2019, must be submitted a) at the rulemaking hearing on July 23, 2019; b) in hard copy format with an original and ten (10) copies.
Oral comment may be provided at the hearing as follows:
- Each speaker will be allowed to testify;
- All persons wishing to provide oral comment must sign up to do so at the hearing, noting whom they represent and/or if they are ceding any portion of their time to another speaker;
- Any person signing up to speak may cede any portion or all of their time to another speaker, however, no speaker may be ceded the time of more than two other speakers, and
- At his discretion, the Hearing Officer may limit or extend the time of any speaker.
After taking public comment the Hearing Officer will commence deliberations regarding adoption of the proposed permanent rules.
Reasonable accommodation will be provided upon request for persons with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability who requires an accommodation to participate in this public hearing, please notify Doug Platt at 303-866-6095 by no later than July 16, 2019.The Executive Director will consider adoption of new permanent rules to the Office of Administrative Courts Procedural Rules for Worker's Compensation which will be located at 1 CCR 104-3. The rules are being promulgated primarily so it comports with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7 and 28 C.R.R, Part 42, Subpart C (Title VI) concerning limited English proficient (LEP) Individuals.
The proposed rules, notice of proposed rulemaking and the proposed statement of basis, specific statutory authority and purpose will be available for review by interested persons on or before close of business June 12, 2019, at the Department's Executive Director's office offices, 1525 Sherman Street, 5th floor, Denver, Colorado 80203, or on the Executive Director's website, "What's New," at http://www.colorado.gov/dpa In addition, they are available for review at the Office of Administrative Courts offices, 1525 Sherman Street, 4th floor, Denver, Colorado 80203 or on the Office of Administrative Courts website "What's New" at https://www.colorado.gov/oac. The executive Director is exercising her rulemaking authority as granted under §24-4-103, C.R.S. et seq., §24-30-1001, C.R.S. et seq., as well as §24-50.3- 104(3)(a) and (3)(g), C.R.S., to track changes to the Workers' Compensation Act (§8-40-101 et seq., C.R.S.).
Kara Veitch
Executive Director
Department of Personnel & Administration
- Basics & Purpose
Download PDF version of Basis & Purpose
Statement of Basis and Purpose
The Office of Administrative Court's Workers' Compensation Rules ("Rules") are found at 1 CCR 104-3.
The basis for this rulemaking is to modify rule 1 CCR 104-3 Rule 21. The executive Director is exercising her rulemaking authority as granted under §24-4-103, C.R.S. et seq., §24-30-1001, C.R.S. et seq., as well as §24-50.3-104(3)(a) and (3)(g), C.R.S., to track changes to the Workers' Compensation Act (§8-40-101 et seq., C.R.S.).
The general purpose of the Executive Director in conducting the rulemaking is to comport with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7 and28 C.R.R, Part 42, Subpart C (Title VI) concerning limited English proficient (LEP) Individuals.
The Executive Director finds, as required by §24-4-103(4)(b), C.R.S. that the need for the rulemaking exists; the proper constitutional and statutory authority exists for the rules; to the extent practicable, the rules are clearly and simply stated so that their meaning will be understood by any required to comply with the rules; the rules do not conflict with other provisions of the law; and any duplication or overlapping of the rules, if any, has been explained.
The rules adopted shall become effective September 21, 2019.
Dated this 13th day of June, 2019
Kara Veitch
Executive Director
Department of Personnel & Administration
- Comment - Wilkerson
Below is a comment provided by Wilkerson, you can also view a pdf version of Wilkerson's comment here.
limited English proficient Individuals
Jon Wilkerson <jongwilkerson@comcast.net> To: doug.platt@state.co.usMon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:39 AM
Hi Doug:
Regarding the proposed DORA rule change regarding interpreters, I do think that interpreters should be provided by the OAC. Most people who are not proficient in English are economically disadvantaged to begin with. To demand that they pay for interpreters (or that they are even capable of finding qualified interpreters) places a huge financial burden on them.
Thank you, Jon Wilkerson
- Comment - De Villegas-Decker
Below is a comment provided by De Villegas-Decker, you can also view a pdf version of De Villegas-Decker's comment here.
07/23/19 Public Hearing re: 1 CCR 104-3, Rule 21. Interpreters
Aracely De Villegas-Decker <aracely@killianlaw.com> To: "doug.platt@state.co.us" <doug.platt@state.co.us>
Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:25 PMGood afternoon Doug:
I'd like to thank the Executive Director of the Department of DPA for holding the proceedings to address the need of interpreters in court rooms to aid non-En9lish speaking injured workers during a critical moment in an injured worker's claim·
It would be helpful if Rule 27{A) would clarify when a party may request OAC provide an interpreter? To avoid late requests and continuances of hearings due to lack of interpreting services, I suggest modification of the application for Hearing to reflect a place where the filing party may request an interpreter with specified language· when when the Notice of hearing is issued, OAC acknowledges the request of an interpreter. Further, confirmation of interpreting services needed may be noted in the CIS forms to assure OAC Clerks have an interpreter lined up for hearing.
Again thank you for your time and consideration to these changes which will hopefully help an underserved community.
Aracely De Villegas-DeckerParalegal
KILLIAN DAVIS Ri | Grand Junction, CO 87502
Tel· (970) 247-0707 | Fax (970) 242-8375 | www·killianlaw·com aracely@killianlaw·com
- Comment - Quevedo
Below is a comment provided by Quevedo, you can also view a pdf version of Quevedo's comment here.
Compliance With Title IV
My name is Jen Quevedo and I am a Professional Interpreter cross trained in both the medical and legal fields. I currently hold the Healthcare Interpreter Certification through the Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters. I have vast experience interpreting in the administrative courts on the Western Slope as well as the medical field including workmen’s compensation cases. I am writing in support of the rule change to comport with Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. SS2000d to 2000d-7 and 28 C.R.R, Part 42, Subpart C (Title VI) concerning LEP individuals. I commend you for undertaking this process to assure that the Courts are given a whole and complete picture of the cases presented no matter the English proficiency of the witness.
As the current rule stands, there is no mechanism for the Court to evaluate the quality or the accuracy of the assistance that the Limited English Proficient witness is provided with. While I am aware that those presenting themselves as qualified to interpret in this Court must sign the Code of Ethics for Administrative Court Interpreters, this does not assess training and ability.
An attorney or a witness can bring an ad hoc interpreter with no training and no requisite skill level and as long as they sign the Code of Ethics, no additional voir dire is conducted to assess their competency. Oftentimes, attorneys rely on untrained bilingual staff to provide interpretation services in Court. Professional Interpreters are trained to faithfully and accurately convey the entirety of the source language orally, reflecting the style, register, and cultural context of the source message, without omissions, additions or embellishments on the part of the interpreter. This Court does have the ability to assess the competency of most expert witnesses and attorneys but lacks the ability to assure the competency of the language services provided, despite the “interpreter’s” promise to adhere to the Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics does not take into account impediments to performance such as lack of training and experience.In allowing substandard or untrained interpretation to continue, it is a violation of the due process protections. All of the stakeholders have a vested interest in assuring that the witnesses statements are relayed as accurately as possible to the Courts. Professional interpreters are tasked with preserving the record to accurately reflect any utterance by the LEP individual.
Pinnacol, the largest provider of workmen's compensation insurance in the state of Colorado, requires that interpreters providing services to their claimants maintain healthcare interpretation credentials and training. The Court should be held to a higher standard as they have a duty to uphold the claimants’ rights to due process. It is in the interest of all parties; the attorneys on both sides, the Court, the Claimant that a full and accurate record is maintained. The only way that accuracy and standards of practice are able to be controlled is if the Court is the entity contracting the interpreter and measuring the standards applied.I would like to thank you for undertaking this process as, I believe, that it will make a tremendous difference in ensuring that LEP individuals receive the appropriate interpretation in court. The United States prides itself on due process as well as equality. Ensuring that these liberties extend to LEP individuals is a responsibility that we must not take lightly. Thank you for your time.