End of Summer Case Law Update

Contact us if you would like a copy of any opinion or would like to discuss the Court’s holdings.

Wainscott v. Centura Health Corporation – Court of Appeals holds that strict compliance with hospital lien is not required (CA 08/14/14). The Court of Appeals held that minor filing and notice deficiencies should not invalidate an otherwise valid hospital lien and that substantial compliance may be sufficient to satisfy the filing and notice provisions of Colorado’s hospital lien statute. A carrier settling a personal injury claim where a hospital lien is of record must also resolve that claim.

Kelly, MD v. Haralampopoulos – Statements made for diagnosis are admissible under Rules of evidence (SC 06/16/14). The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals erred in limiting the scope of language in CRE 803(4) [“diagnosis or treatment”] to statements made for the purpose of prospective treatment. It held that the term “diagnosis” focuses on the cause of a patient’s medical condition, and may or may not involve subsequent treatment. Statements made by the family friend made for the purpose of discovering the cause of respondent’s cardiac arrest and failure to react to normal resuscitation efforts were thus admissible.

In re People v. Kailey – Supreme Court finds threatening statements made to psychologist are not privileged (SC 06/23/14). The Supreme Court held that if a mental health treatment provider believes that statements made by a patient during a therapy session threaten imminent physical violence against a specific person or persons, which triggers that provider’s legal duty to warn under CRS §13-21-117 (2), the patient’s threatening statements are not protected by the psychologist–patient privilege.

Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Circle S Feed Store, LLC – Diminution in value found to be ‘property damage’ under CGL policy [13-2006] (10th Cir., June 17, 2014). Insured’s operations [injecting water for salt mining] caused an underground cavern to form under its own property and the adjacent property owned by Circle S and caused subsidence and movement of Circle S’s land. The Court found an occurrence and rejected the intentional act exclusion claim under a general liability policy. The Court also found that damages that resulted from “property damage” within the meaning of a CGL policy may be measured according to the diminution in value of the property, as long as the diminution in value is attributable to the covered damage.