GENERAL46384 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III. The Prebearing Order Was Prepared In Substantial Compliance With Board Rules. Marilyn Boynton argues that the Board's prehearing conference officer adjudicated issues she raised in her objection letter, and did so without recording the proceeding. She argues that the Board erred by somehow authorizing the prehearing conference officer to decide issues. The Boazd appointed W.T. Cohan, a former Board member, to conduct the conference in this case. Vol. 3, p. 834. He met with the parties in Durango, Colorado on May 15, 2001 to conduct a prehearing conference, and prepare a proposed prehearing order as a result of that conference. Id. At the commencement of the hearing, the Board considered whether to adopt the draft prehearing order, and then adopted the order. Vol. 3, pp. 1018-1021. No Plaintiff objected to the proposed order at the time the Board considered adopting it. If any or all Plaintiffs questioned the order because they had not received it until the day of the hearing, or because they questioned its content, then,they had a duty to raise the objection at the time the Boazd considered the order. Since no party objected to the order at that time, they have waived their objections and may not raise them for the first time on appeal. Committee for Better Health Care for All Colorado Citizens by Schrier v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884, 888. (Colo. 1992) (Court may consider only issues that have actually been determined by another court or agency and have been propeily presented.); See also, Boyett v, Smith, 888 P.2d 294 (Colo. App. 1994) (Contentions not raised in the trial court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal.) Even if a Plaintiffhad objected to the time limit or the issues list, it would not have affected the case. The Board may have amended the order to give them more time. Since they did not use the time they were allotted anyway, this is irrelevant. Vol. 3, p. 1280. If they had