October 22, 2014

2010 Colorado Health Insurance Report Released by DORA

The Commissioner of Insurance’s 2010 Annual Health Insurance Report was released on Tuesday and contains information about the present state of health insurance in Colorado, including the cost of health insurance and the factors that drive the cost of health insurance premiums on an individual and group basis.

The report identifies where insured Coloradans get their health insurance, whether the number of uninsured residents is going up or down, and how Colorado compares statistically with the rest of the country.

The full report can be found here.

SB 11-123: Technical Changes to Child Support Procedures

On January 31, 2011, Sen. Joyce Foster, D-Denver, and Rep. Ken Summers, R-Lakewood, introduced SB 123 – Concerning technical changes to child support procedures. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill:

  • Clarifies that a court shall not order genetic testing for a father whose paternity has been determined by another state, but the court may stay a proceeding for the father to pursue a nonparentage claim in another state. Additionally, the bill clarifies that a delegate child support enforcement unit shall not order genetic testing for a father whose paternity has been determined by another state.
  • Requires the parties in certain proceedings to provide social security numbers for themselves and for their children at the commencement of the proceedings;
  • Requires certain employer income-withholding payments to be processed through the Colorado family support registry and includes a statutory reference to those orders in the statute concerning the family support registry;
  • Clarifies the terminology for the type of costs that are reimbursed through the assignment of child support rights in foster care cases and removes obsolete language relating to the criteria for the assignment of child support rights to conform with current federal law;
  • Adds a reference to temporary assistance to needy families in the definition of child support debt as a type of public assistance that a family may be receiving;
  • Clarifies in the notice of financial responsibility for child support that an objection to paternity that was determined pursuant to the laws of another state must be resolved in the state where paternity was determined; and
  • Clarifies that a delegate child support enforcement unit may enter temporary orders relating to child support if paternity has been determined by another state.

The bill passed the Senate on February 16.

Since this summary, the bill was introduced in the House on February 21 and assigned to the Judiciary Committee.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

SB 11-116: Business Fiscal Impact of Newly Introduced Legislation or Proposed Rule-Making

On January 31, 2011, Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, and Rep. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood, introduced SB 116 – Concerning business fiscal impact statements. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill requires the staff of the legislative council to designate a 5-day period following the introduction of new legislation or the notice of proposed rule-making. During the 5-day period, Colorado businesses may submit comments regarding the new legislation’s or new rule’s business fiscal impact. Upon the expiration of the 5-day period, the staff of the legislative council is required to compile and summarize the comments and prepare a business fiscal impact statement. For legislation, the statement will accompany the fiscal note. For rules, the statement will be forwarded to the executive director of the principal department seeking to promulgate the rule and posted on the staff of the legislative council’s official web site. Assigned to the State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

SB 11-107: Exception to Noneconomic Damages Limit in Civil Actions for DUI Incidents

On January 31, 2011, Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, and Rep. Mark Barker, R-Colorado Springs, introduced SB 107 – Concerning the recovery of noneconomic damages in a civil action concerning damages resulting from a DUI incident.

Current law imposes a $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages that may be recovered in a civil action. The bill creates an exception to this limit for actions concerning damages resulting from alcohol-related or drug-related driving incidents. On February 9, the Judiciary Committee amended the bill and referred it to the full Senate for consideration on 2nd Reading.

On February 21, the bill’s second reading was laid over to February 25.

This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report. Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

HB 11-1117: Petitioning a Court to Order Compliance with Administrative Subpoena Addressing Alleged Campaign Finance Reporting Violation

On January 21, 2011, Reps. Beth McCann, D-Denver, Lois Court, D-Denver, and Sen. Steve King, R-Grand Junction, introduced HB 1117 – Concerning subpoenas issued by administrative law judges in campaign finance proceedings. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

If a witness or party fails to comply with an administrative subpoena issued to address an alleged campaign finance reporting violation, the bill allows the agency or party that requested the administrative subpoena to petition a district court to order compliance with the administrative subpoena. The witness or party may appear before the district court and show why he or she should not be ordered to comply with the administrative subpoena. If the witness or party fails to appear at the show cause hearing, the district court may issue a warrant for the subpoenaed witness’s or party’s arrest or impose other sanctions. If the subpoenaed witness or party does not show good cause why he or she should not be ordered to comply with the administrative subpoena, the district court shall order compliance with the administrative subpoena and may impose remedial and punitive fines. The amended bill passed out of the House on February 15.

The bill was introduced in the Senate on February 21, 2011 and assigned to the Judiciary Committee.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

HB 11-1106: Recovery of Actual Damages in Personal Injury Cases

On January 21, 2011, Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, introduced HB 1106 – Concerning the recovery of actual damages in personal injury cases. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The purpose of this bill is to restate and reaffirm the general assembly’s intent that the common-law collateral source rule is abrogated and to indicate that a recent decision of the Colorado supreme court (Volunteers of America v. Gardenswartz) interpreting the statute on reduction of damages for payments from collateral sources is contrary to the general assembly’s intent to prevent compensatory damage awards for medical expenses from exceeding the amount accepted by the health care service provider for treating the injured party. In an action by a person or a legal representative to recover economic damages, the recoverable damages for reasonable and necessary medical or health care, treatment, or services shall include only those amounts actually paid by or on behalf of the injured person to the providers. The bills states that if payment for medical or health care services has not been made at the time of trial or arbitration, the recoverable amounts shall be limited to the amounts customarily accepted by the providers in satisfaction of their bills. Assigned to the Judiciary Committee.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Tenth Circuit: Opinions, 2/22/11

The Tenth Circuit on Tuesday issued four published opinions and four unpublished opinions.

Published

In United States v. Story, the Court affirmed the district court’s sentence. The district court sentenced Petitioner to additional time in prison so that she might be eligible for a drug rehabilitation program available only to those serving sentences of at least 24-months. Petitioner challenges the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a), “which directs sentencing judges to ‘recognize that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation.'” The Court found that increasing the sentence for rehabilitation objectives was improper under the statute but, due to a circuit split on the issue, there was no plain error. The Supreme Court of the United States will be reviewing the issue this term.

In Prost v. Anderson, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner pleaded guilty in a money laundering conspiracy in 1998, and in 2008 the Supreme Court issued an opinion interpreting the statute under which he was convicted. Petitioner sought review of his conviction under the new interpretation, which was denied by the district court. Because a statutory interpretation argument was never part of his prior appeals, the Court determined that he is not allowed a second collateral challenge to raise the argument now.

In Sarkar v. McCallin, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner was terminated from his employment and brought suit alleging his termination was due to statements he made that were protected by the constitution, racial discrimination, and retaliation. The Court found, however, that his speech was not protected under the First Amendment; Petitioner’s speech were classic examples of unprotected “speech that owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities.” Additionally, the reasons for Petitioner’s termination were not pretext for racial discrimination or retaliatory, but were made in good faith.

In Mumby v. Pure Energy Services (USA), Inc., the Court affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioners brought suit against their employer Respondent for failing to pay proper overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court found Respondent’s actions were willful and unreasonable. The Court found that the legal advice sought by Respondent put Respondent on notice of potential legal deficiencies, even though it may not have been the primary reason for which they sought advice regarding overtime pay; Respondent cannot both rely on and disregard advice of counsel. Even though Respondents may have acted in good faith, their actions were unreasonable and, therefore, liquidated damages were not unreasonable.

Unpublished

Gorny v. Salazar

Nasious v. Denver Sheriff’s Department

Dossa v. Donley

United States v. Hernandez