Laserfiche WebLink
Heimer, 919 P.2d 786, 792 (Colo. 1996); see also, In re Fields v. Suthers, 984 P.2d 1167, 1172 <br />(Colo. 1999) ( "assuming [a statutory provision] is ambiguous, we recognize our duty to construe <br />statutes in a way that does not raise constitutional concerns. "). <br />5. Allowing the imposition of civil penalties while Cotter's appeal from <br />the August 2010 Order is pending would raise another serious <br />constitutional concern. <br />Adopting the Division's position and upholding the Board's imposition of civil penalties <br />would also raise another serious constitutional issue. The Division insists that Cotter was <br />properly subject to additional penalties in the December 2010 Order, despite Cotter's prior <br />appeal of the Board's August 2010 Order. Any statutory provision that imposes penalties on <br />claimants seeking in good faith judicial review of an agency award raises a serious question of <br />whether the statutory provision would be upheld as constitutional. Industrial Comm'n v. <br />Continental Investment Co., 277 P. 303, 304 (Colo. 1929). In the absence of a clear indication <br />that the legislature intends to impose a penalty during the pendency of judicial proceedings to <br />review an administrative award, the Act should not be construed to impose a penalty during the <br />pendency of judicial proceedings, thereby bringing the sections into possible conflict with the <br />Constitution. Id. <br />Rather than needlessly wade into a constitutional quagmire, the Court should interpret the <br />Act based on the reasonable reading that it does not give the Board power to impose civil <br />penalties in these circumstances. See Adams County School District No. 50, 919 P.2d at 792. <br />16 <br />