Despite the sponsor's effort to find common ground with the bill's
critics, Democrats on the Senate Local Government Committee today sided
with trial lawyers and against doctors, families and Colorado businesses
to kill House Bill 1106 on a 3-2 party-line vote.
Presented to overturn a bizarre 4-3 decision by the Colorado Supreme
Court in November 2010, HB 1106 clarified how medical costs should be
calculated in personal injury cases. The court's majority found that
injured plaintiffs were entitled to "billed" medical costs -- even when
the billed amount greatly exceeded the amount ultimately paid. A
survey by Colorado Civil Justice League of recent cases found that
billed amounts sometimes exceeded the paid amount by two, four or, in
one case, eight times.
After clearing the House of Representatives on a bipartisan 37-27 vote,
House Bill 1106 (sponsored by Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, and
Sen. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango) is slated for a hearing in the Senate
Local Government Committee on Tuesday, March 29, at 2 p.m.
The curious committee assignment, the prerogative of Senate President
Brandon Shaffer (D-Longmont), evoked considerable speculation among
state capitol observers who debated whether the assignment amounted to a
lifeline, a death sentence or a "jump ball" in the five-member
committee which does not ordinarily consider bills pertaining to civil
law.
On a 37-27 vote, the Colorado House of Representatives passed House Bill
1106 (sponsored by Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs and Sen. Ellen
Roberts, R-Durango), which would overturn a controversial split decision
issued last November by the Colorado Supreme Court.
The court's ruling, which resulted in a 4-3 split among the justices,
allows successful plaintiffs to collect phantom damages for medical care
costs — damages that they never paid and never actually owed —
undermining a 1986 statute that sought to prevent plaintiffs from
turning a profit from their injuries.
Left untouched, the court's ruling will drive up the cost of health care
by pushing up insurance costs for doctors and other health care
providers. Colorado drivers will also see the cost of mandatory
liability insurance increase if they must pay far more than the actual
cost of medical care for people injured in traffic accidents.
Four Democrats joined 33 Republicans in the House to pass HB 1106, but
the bill still faces uncertain prospects in the Senate where trial
lawyers are pressuring Democrats.
House Bill 1106 (by Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs) passed the House Judiciary Committee on March 4 on a 6-5 vote. The bill seeks to restore a
statutory scheme for measuring damages for medical care that was passed
in 1986. Last November, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the
statute in a deeply divided 4-3 decision. The Court decided that what is
initially billed by a hospital or other care provider — rather than
what is paid by an insurance company to settle the account — is the
proper measure of damages.
The author of the dissent, Justice Nancy Rice, argued that the majority
had ignored “the legislature’s clear intent, the statute’s plain
language, and sound public policy.” Agreeing with Rice, CCJL and our
allies in the business and health care community have formed a coalition
to reverse the action of the Supreme Court and restore legislative
intent.
At the Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill, trial lawyers argued —
quite contrary to Justice Rice's opinion and other court decisions —
that the Supreme Court had changed nothing by its November opinion and
the law was the same now as it has always been. Indeed, they argued
that passage of HB 1106 would overturn settled rules of common law that
have been in place for centuries.
Numerous witnesses supporting the bill differed. They argued that the
General Assembly had replaced the common law in passing tort reform
legislation in 1986 and the Supreme Court had returned to the common law
in November. HB 1106 now goes to the full House now for debate.
Colorado Civil Justice League, the state's leading advocate of "common sense in the courtroom," today applauded the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Ferrellgas vs. Yeiser.
In an en banc ruling, the Court found that Ellen Yeiser, originally the plaintiff in a breach of contract claim, may not collect twice — from both her insurer and from a defendant — for property damage expenses. She also sought damages for loss of use of her home and loss of rental income from defendant Ferrellgas Inc., which supplied propane to the house in Silverthorne.
Yeiser collected property damage and repair expenses from her insurer, which then reached a reimbursement settlement with Ferrellgas. The defendant then offered Yeiser $197,000 to settle her remaining claims, but that offer was rejected.
Ultimately, a jury awarded Yeiser $314,323, but a key question was whether the property damage expenses that Ferrellgas paid to Yeiser's insurer should be deducted from that amount. The Supreme Court ruled that Yeiser wasn't entitled to a double recovery and that Ferrellgas could deduct $212,071 in expenses that it had previously settled with Yeiser's insurer.
By Mark Hillman From The Sunday Denver Post, Nov. 28, 2010
Whether "haggling" at a garage sale or for the best deal on a vehicle, most of us understand the give-and-take that often determines a fair price.
A seller asks a price that is more than he needs to cover costs and a potential buyer responds by offering less than she is actually willing to pay. If the two parties settle on a price, common sense tells us that price is reasonable – i.e., it meets the seller's need to cover costs and fits the buyer's ability and willingness to pay.
A 4-3 majority of the Colorado Supreme Court doesn't seem to understand that the advertised price and the actual cost are often vastly different. In Volunteers of America vs. Gardenswartz, the court considered whether someone injured by another's negligence is entitled to recover the amount originally billed for his medical expenses or the only the amount actually paid to the hospital and doctor.
Colorado Supreme Court on Monday handed down a bizarre 4-3 ruling that allows plaintiffs to recover health care costs that they never owed.
The court majority ruled that it's not sufficient for the party at fault to simply reimburse the injured victim for medical costs paid by the victim's insurance. Instead, the court ruled that the victim has a right to recover the original amount billed by the health care provider -- even if the victim or his insurer actually paid far less.
