Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Respondent Vasilios Haralampopoulos visited the emergency room with severe abdominal pain. After a CT scan revealed a large cystic mass in his liver, Petitioner Dr. Mauricio Waintrub examined Respondent, gave a differential diagnosis identifying four possible causes for his condition, and approved a fine-needle biopsy to determine the nature of the cyst. Petitioner Dr. Jason Kelly performed the procedure, during which Respondent suffered respiratory and cardiac arrest. Normal resuscitation efforts were unsuccessful, and it took over 30 minutes to revive Respondent's heart. Lack of oxygen to his brain left Respondent in a vegetative state. Ten days later, Respondent's family and friends met with doctors to determine why Respondent went into arrest and had such a poor reaction to resuscitation efforts. After the meeting, Respondent's then-roommate and ex-girlfriend Gulsans Akyol Hurd approached Dr. Kelly and asked him whether Respondent's prior cocaine use could have contributed to his injuries. Dr. Kelly responded that cocaine could have contributed to Respondent's resistance to normal resuscitation efforts, but he was not a cardiologist so he did not know. Respondent brought a medical malpractice suit against seven individuals, including Petitioners Dr. Kelly and Dr. Waintrub. Respondent filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude Hurd's statements to Dr. Kelly as inadmissible hearsay not covered by any hearsay exception. The trial court denied the motion in limine, finding that Hurd's statements were made for purposes of diagnosis and treatment under Rule 803(4), and that their probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Colorado Rule of Evidence 403. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Respondent's cocaine use. The court held that Hurd's statements to Dr. Kelly were not admissible under Rule 803(4) because the statements were made after Respondent was in a vegetative state and treatment was no longer possible, they were not made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in limiting the scope of Rule 803(4) to statements made for the purpose of prospective treatment. The Rule's plain language applies to "diagnosis or treatment," and while the term "treatment" has a prospective focus, the term "diagnosis" does not. "Here, Hurd's statements were made for the purpose of discovering the cause of Respondent's resistance to normal resuscitation efforts, and were thus admissible under Rule 803(4)." The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Kelly v. Haralampopoulos" on Justia Law

A bicyclist was attacked by two ranch dogs herding sheep while participating in a mountain bike race. The cyclist and dogs were on federally owned land on which the attack took place, subject to a sheep grazing permit and a recreational use permit. The cyclist sustained serious injuries during the attack. The cyclist and her husband sued the dog's owners, alleging negligence, negligence per se and loss of consortium. They also brought a strict liability claim under Colorado's dog bite statute. The shepherds moved for summary judgment, arguing that: (1) the Colorado Premises Liability Act preempted the cyclist's common law claims; and (2) they were immune from strict liability under the working-dog exemption to the dog bite statute. The district court granted the shepherds' motion. The court of appeals reversed, interpreting the working dog exemption as applicable only when the dog is on the owner's own property. The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the appellate court: the exemption applied when a dog bite occurs on the dog owner's property or when the dog is working under the control of the dog owner. View "Robinson v. Legro" on Justia Law

Before the Supreme Court in this case, two novel questions of Colorado law: (1) the interaction between various waiver provisions in the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA); and (2) whether the "recreation area waiver" of the Act applied to injuries sustained on a walkway adjacent to a public school playground. The plaintiff in this case (a minor child) slipped and fell in a puddle of water that accumulated on a concrete walkway at his public elementary school. As a result of his fall, the child sustained a severe head injury. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court: (1) reversed the court of appeals to the extent that it held that the consideration of one CGIA waiver provision affirmatively precluded consideration of any alternative waiver provisions; and (2) the recreation area waiver's requirements were not met in this case because the walkway at issue was not itself a "public facility" nor was it a component of a larger collection of items that qualified as a "public facility." View "Young v. Brighton School District 27J" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this matter was one of first impression: whether an injury that occurred on a "zip line" on a public school playground met the requirements of the "recreation area waiver" of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. A student was playing on the zip line during lunch recess when she fell and fractured her wrist. Her parents sued the school district in tort. Using the three-step analysis announced in "Daniel v. City of Colorado Springs," the Supreme Court held that a collection on playground equipment considered as a whole qualified as a "public facility" under the recreation area waiver. The court of appeals erred when it held that the zip line individually (rather than the playground collectively) constituted a "public facility." View "St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J v. A.R.L." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was one of first impression: whether the requirements of a statutory "recreation area waiver" can be met by a party injured in a public golf course's parking lot. Specifically, the issue was reduced to whether a public golf course's parking lot qualified as a "public facility" under the Governmental Immunity Act, and whether such lot is "located in" a "recreation area." Respondent Marilyn Daniel drove to a public golf course in Colorado Springs to see her Congressional Representative speak at the clubhouse. Instead of parking in a lot close to the clubhouse, respondent parked on a street a block away. As she crossed the golf course parking lot, she stepped in a hole, fell and fractured her hip. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that a parking lot serving a public golf course is a "public facility" under the recreational area waiver. A three-step analysis should be used to determine whether a public facility is "located in" a "recreation area:" (1) determine which specific portions of the property should be considered a "putative recreation area;" (2) determine whether the public entity's primary purpose in building or maintaining that area was for the promotion of recreation; and (3) determine whether the facility at issue was located within the boundaries of that recreation area. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court erred in categorically holding that the recreation area waiver did not apply to this type of parking lot. View "Daniel v. City of Colorado Springs" on Justia Law

Respondent Helen Rodriguez injured herself after falling down a flight of stairs at work. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether an "unexplained" fall satisfied the "arising out of" employment requirement of the Workers' Compensation Act. The Court agreed with the appellate court that respondent's unexplained fall was compensable, but it disagreed with the reasoning. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court erred when it agreed with respondent's view that her injuries arose out of employment, and held that an unexplained fall necessarily stemmed from a "neutral" risk attributable to neither the employment nor the employee. "Under our longstanding 'but-for' test, such an unexplained fall 'arises out of' employment if the fall would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of employment placed the employee in a position where he or she was injured." View "City of Brighton v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Harman-Bergstedt, Inc. appealed the appellate court's decision to reverse an Industrial Claim Appeals Office decision disallowing respondent Elaine Loofbourrow's award of temporary disability benefits. The ICAO concluded that once respondent's treating physician placed her at maximum medical improvement, temporary total disability benefits could not be awarded for the injury for which she was initially treated. The appellate court concluded that under the circumstances of this case, such an independent medical exam was not a prerequisite to temporary total disability benefits. After its review of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the appellate court was correct in its decision: because a determination of maximum medical improvement has no statutory significance with regard to injuries resulting in loss of no more than three days (or shifts) of work time, respondent's award of temporary total disability benefits was not barred by her failure to first seek a division-sponsored independent medical examination. View "Harman-Bergstedt, Inc. v. Loofbourrow" on Justia Law

A Jefferson County Sheriff Deputy was transporting two juveniles from a court hearing. The two were seated in the rear of the transport van, handcuffed. En route, another driver allegedly turned into an intersection without yielding and collided with the transport van. As a result of the collision, the juveniles sustained multiple injuries. The juveniles sued the County, alleging the deputy transporting them was negligent. The County claimed it was immune from suit. The trial court denied the County's motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals affirmed. Upon review of the County's appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in finding allegations of negligence alone were sufficient to overcome the statutory grant of immunity and the presumption of good faith afforded to law enforcement. The Court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Young v. Jefferson County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to consider an issue of first impression: whether under the state premises liability statute, the attractive nuisance doctrine applied only to trespassing children but not to licensees or invitees. The Court held that the doctrine permits all children, regardless of classification, to bring a claim for attractive nuisance. This case was remanded for the trial court to consider the merits of the plaintiff's attractive nuisance claim. View "S.W. ex rel. Wacker v. Towers Boat Club, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court considered a reformulated certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: whether Colorado’s premises liability statute applied as a matter of law only to activities and circumstances directly or inherently are related to the land. The Supreme Court held that the statute is not restricted solely to activities and circumstances that are directly or inherently related to the land. Instead, the Court held that the premises liability statute applied to conditions, activities, and circumstances on the property that the landowner is liable for in its legal capacity as a landowner. View "Larrieu v. Best Buy Stores, L.P." on Justia Law