but are not necessarily limited to the persons, dates, and documents associated with the plaintiff's alleged injury and filing of written notice. By contrast, whether one or more documents constitute written notice of a claim under section 24-10-109(1) is a question of law subject to de movo review."). Accordingly, the trial court should have held an evidentia-ry hearing pursuant to 12(b)(1) to resolve those factual issues upon which jurisdiction turns, and we remand the case for this purpose. See Walton, 968 P.2d at 641 ("When disputed facts exist regarding application of the CGIA's immunity bar, the trial court on its own motion may hold an evidentiary hearing, and should do so upon a public entity's request."); Lafitte v. State Highway Dep't, 885 P.2d 338, 341-42 (Colo.App.1994) (<HOLDING>); Reynolds v. State Bd., 873 P.2d 1, 1
holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding that a remand and possibly an evidentiary hearing was necessary for reconsideration of the plaintiffs claim for injuries allegedly caused by the states negligent failure to maintain a public highway because court of appeals could not tell whether parties presented and court considered all relevant evidence on the issue holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal holding that because defendant did not raise a newly discovered evidence claim or amend his postconviction motion after the evidentiary hearing the issue was not timely presented to the trial court and was not cognizable on appeal holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration