April 22, 2019

Archives for March 28, 2016

SB 16-026: Preventing Restriction of Communication Rights of Protected Persons

On January 13, 2016, Sen. Laura Woods introduced SB 16-026Concerning Personal Rights of Protected Persons, and, In Connection Therewith, Limiting the Ability of a Guardian or Conservator to Isolate a Protected Person. The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was amended and referred to Appropriations.

The proposed bill provides that a guardian or conservator shall not restrict a protected person’s right of communication, visitation, or interaction with other persons. Unless a restriction is authorized by a court order, this includes the right to receive visitors, telephone calls, or personal mail. A court may issue such order restricting communications, visitations, or interactions if good cause can be shown by a guardian or conservator.

Additionally, an interested person, including the protected person, who has a reasonable belief that the guardian or conservator has violated the court order may move the court to do any one of the following: (1) require the guardian or conservator to grant a person access to the protected person; (2) restrict, or further restrict, a person’s access to the protected person; (3) modify the guardian or conservator’s duties; or (4) remove the guardian or conservator.

The proposed bill also provides that a guardian or conservator who knowingly isolates a protected person in violation of the law or a court order is subject to removal.

The bill also proposes certain instances in which the guardian or conservator must notify the protected person’s closest known family members or person designated by the protected person. These instances are: (1) if the protected person changes his or her residence; (2) if the protected person resides at a location other than his or her residence for more than 7 days; (3) if the protected person is admitted to a medical facility for acute care or emergency care; or (4) if the protected person dies.

Mark Proust is a 2016 JD Candidate at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

SB 16-027: Allowing Medicaid Clients to Receive Prescriptions Through the Mail

On January 13, 2016, Sens. Beth Martinez Humenik and Nancy Todd along with Reps. Dianne Primavera and Lois Landgraf introduced SB 16-027Concerning Allowing the Option for Medicaid Clients to Obtain Prescribed Drugs Through Mail, and, In Connection Therewith, Reducing an Appropriation. The bill has passed through the Senate Health & Human Services and Appropriations Committees with amendments in each committee and was passed on Second and Third Reading in the Senate Committee of the Whole. In the House, the bill passed out of the Health, Insurance, & Environment Committee with amendments and is now in the House Appropriations Committee.

The proposed bill specifically relates to persons receiving medical assistance (Recipients). The bill would allow recipients the option to receive prescribed medications, used to treat chronic medical conditions, through the mail. The bill also provides that the recipient may receive up to a certain amount of the medication and would still pay the same copayment amount as recipients receiving the medication by another method.

The proposed bill provides that the department of health care policy and financing shall encourage recipients to use any local retail pharmacy for mail delivery. Furthermore, the bill would require the state board of medical services to adopt rules, “to the extent allowed by federal law,” relating to the option to receive medications through the mail. Specifically, the bill proposes to make subsection (1)(a)(II) of C.R.S. § 25.5-5-505 mandatory, stating “the state board rules must include the definition of maintenance medications.”

The bill also proposes the addition of subsection (1)(c) of C.R.S. § 25.5-5-505. The subsection states “a pharmacy may provide maintenance medications through the mail to medical assistance recipients in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws if the pharmacy is enrolled as a provider with the state department and is registered with the state board of pharmacy, created and existing pursuant to C.R.S. § 12-42.5-103.”

Additionally, the Senate provided amendments to Section 2 of the proposed bill, Appropriations – Adjustments to 2016 Long Bill. The amendments provide, in relevant part, that to implement the Act, the appropriations made for the 2016-17 fiscal year to the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing for medical services premiums are adjusted in the following ways: (a) the general fund appropriation is decreased by $9,084; and (b) The cash funds appropriation from the hospital provider fee cash fund is decreased by $409. Furthermore, subsection (2) of Section 2 proposes that the fiscal year medical services premiums for the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing will be decreased by $20,424.

Mark Proust is a 2016 JD Candidate at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

SB 16-037: Modifying Requirements of Record-Keepers Under Colorado Open Records Act

On January 13, 2016, Sen. John Kefalas and Rep. Dan Pabon introduced SB 16-037Concerning Required Public Access Under the “Colorado Open Records Act” to Public Records as Defined By Such Act Contained in Digitally Stored Data Maintained By Governmental Bodies. The bill has passed through the Senate Health & Human Services and Appropriations Committees with amendments in both committees. It passed through the Senate with amendments and was assigned in the House to the Health, Insurance, & Environment Committee, where it was amended and referred to Appropriations.

This bill proposes to modify to the existing legal requirements under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) pertaining to the inspection of open records.

The bill updates outdated statutory language used to describe public records kept in miniaturized, electronic, or digital form as a foundation for inspection requirements in connection with such records.

It deletes existing language that would require the official custodian to take any measures necessary to assist the public in locating specific records and to ensure access to the records without unreasonable cost or delay. The bill proposes to substitute provisions that would require the official custodian to provide records in any nonproprietary file format and storage medium specified by the requestor. This would include digital copies of any computer files, email, records uploaded to an online storage location shared with the requestor, access through viewing stations for records kept on microfiche, or, at the custodian’s discretion, direct electronic access.

The bill also requires the official custodian to manipulate electronically or digitally stored data in order to delete any confidential data in response to a records request. Removal of such confidential information or data does not trigger certain requirements specified in CORA for the payment of fees for the generation or copy of a public record. The official custodian, however, may charge the requestor for the actual cost of the digital storage used, if any, and a research and retrieval fee for the time spent gathering the information.

Mark Proust is a 2016 JD Candidate at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 3/25/2016

On Friday, March 25, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and four unpublished opinions.

Lundahl v. Global E. LLC

Padilla v. Clerk

Klecan v. Santillanes

United States v. Bell

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.