Update on Colorado Senate Bill 164

In 2008, Colorado's Senate Bill (SB) 164, which would have raised the cap on economic damages in medical lawsuits from $300,000 to about $468,010 failed to pass and died in the House Judiciary Committee. Now, according to an article in The Denver Post, the legislation is being reintroduced with only a few weeks left in the session, which is set to end on May 6th.

The bill sought to change Colorado law, which currently allows recovery of $300,000 in non-economic damages. Non-economic damages may include such damages as pain and suffering, loss of companionship, and loss of consortium, which is the loss of marital relations. In 1988, the cap was set at $250,000 and then was raised to $300,000 in 2003, but has not been raised since then to adjust for inflation. SB 164 also tried to re-categorize physical impairment and disfigurement from non-economic damages, which would have fallen under the $300,000 statutory cap, to economic damages.

Proponents of the bill, such as the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, argue that non-economic damages should reflect inflation. Those against the bill, such as insurance companies and doctors, have advocated against the bill arguing that it would cause medical malpractice insurance rates to increase significantly.

Presently, medical malpractice damages are limited at $1 million, but judges have the discretionary authority to raise the total award amount. This rule would remain unchanged by the bill.

Unlike the bill's first introduction, Senate President Peter Groff (D-Denver) and Speaker of the House Terrence Carroll (D-Denver) are not re-sponsoring the bill this second time. Instead, Representative Christine Scanlan (D-Dillon) is sponsoring the bill. Scanlan, who is not an attorney, believes not being an attorney and not having prior issues with this bill will help get the bill passed. Further, Democratic Representatives, Debbie Stafford and Cheri Jahn, who opposed the bill last year, are no longer in office.

Some people have opposed bills such as SB 164 because they argue that statutory caps prevent high jury awards in medical malpractice cases. However, others counter that juries are responsible for issuing such high awards, since just raising the statutory cap does not mean a jury would award the maximum amount to every injured plaintiff. They further argue that low statutory caps prevent injured victims from receiving the adequate compensation injured victims deserve.

Thank you for reading this blog. If you or someone you know has been injured due to medical malpractice, or someone you love has unfortunately died due to another's medical negligence, please contact us for assistance. Please also be advised that our postings do not constitute legal advice and comments you leave will not be confidential. If you would like further information or a consultation, please contact us today.