Laserfiche WebLink
should generally comport with the rules of evidence. The Colorado statute, however, states as a <br />broader policy that "when necessazy to do so in order to ascertain facts affecting the substantial <br />rights of the parties to a proceeding, the person so conducting [he hearing may receive and <br />consider evidence not admissible under such rules if such evidence possesses probative value <br />commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent men in the conduct of their affairs." Colo. Rev. <br />Stat. § 24-4-105. <br />Thus, the Boazd has the discretion to consider evidence of causality prior to 1997 because <br />the use of the doctrine of collateral estoppel by the Division and the Tatums is offensive in <br />nature, rather than defensive. The Boazd should make that determination because exclusion of <br />this evidence would be unfair to Basin and would do nothing to promote the policies underlying <br />the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Admission of this evidence is also consistent with the charge <br />of the State Administrative Procedure Act for agencies to consider the broadest range of facts <br />available to allow "a full and true disclosure of the facts." Id. <br />3. Basin Musr Provide Testimony Relating to <br />Events Prior to /997to Address Issues <br />Raised by the Tatums' Expert <br />The Tatums have proffered an expert report by Cazlton Gerity in support of the <br />enforcement action brought by the Division. Mr. Gerity devotes a considerable portion of his <br />report discussing the mechanisms of subsidence at the Golden Eagle Mine, and azguing that the <br />mine caused the initial damage to the Tatum house. His arguments regularly rest on mistakes of <br />fact, misapplications of scientific principles, and incomplete analysis. To address [he issues <br />raised by Mr. Gerity in his report, Basin's experts must necessarily address the fundamental <br />forces at work, and the nature of subsidence at the Golden Eagle Mine. <br />-6- <br />