 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Healthone v. Rodriguez6/24/2002
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART
EN BANC
JUSTICE COATS does not participate.
This case arises out of injuries sustained by Robert Rodriguez while he was receiving treatment at HealthONE d/b/a Aurora Presbyterian Hospital ("HealthONE"). As a result of these injuries, which left Rodriguez severely incapacitated, Rodriguez filed an action against HealthONE, Dr. Malcolm Barton, the treating physician, and Dr. Gary Ogin, a non-treating physician, seeking damages on several theories, including medical malpractice, negligence and outrageous conduct. Before trial, Barton settled with Rodriguez. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ogin, and Rodriguez proceeded to trial against HealthONE. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Rodriguez, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly.
Rodriguez appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ogin, and the court of appeals reversed. Rodriguez v. HealthONE, 24 P.3d 9 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). The court of appeals held that Ogin owed Rodriguez a common law duty of reasonable care. Id. at 15. Rodriguez also appealed the trial court's denial of his request for a lump-sum payment from HealthONE. Id. at 12. The court of appeals held that section 13-64-205(1)(f)(II) of the Health Care Availability Act (HCAA), ยงยง 13-64-101 to -503, 5 C.R.S. (2001), which provides that an incapacitated person may not elect to receive future medical and non-economic damages in a lump-sum payment, is unconstitutional and violates Rodriguez's equal protection rights because it puts him, as an incapacitated person, in a worse position than he would be in if he were not incapacitated. Id. at 19.
We granted certiorari to first determine whether Rodriguez waived his right to appeal when he accepted the attorneys' fees awarded to him under the judgment against HealthONE; if we conclude that Rodriguez is not precluded from appealing, we must then determine whether Ogin owed Rodriguez a duty of care. In addition, because HealthONE argues that Rodriguez is not adversely affected by application of section 13-64-205(1)(f)(II) ("the incapacitated person provision"), we also granted certiorari to determine whether Rodriguez has standing to challenge the constitutionality of such provision. If we conclude that Rodriguez has standing, we must then determine whether the incapacitated person provision violates Rodriguez's equal protection rights.
We conclude that Rodriguez did not waive his right to appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ogin by accepting the attorneys' fees awarded under the judgment against HealthONE. We further hold that, as a matter of law, Ogin owed Rodriguez a common law duty of reasonable care. In addition, although we find that Rodriguez does have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the incapacitated person provision, we hold that the provision is constitutional and does not violate Rodriguez's equal protection rights. Therefore, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Facts and Procedure
In October 1990, Rodriguez's left index finger was amputated as a result of a work-related accident. Because of the amputation, Rodriguez suffered from Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), a chronic pain syndrome, in his left arm. To alleviate his discomfort, Rodriguez received nerve block treatments at HealthONE. Beginning in 1991, Dr. Malcolm Barton, an anesthesiologist at HealthONE, began treating Rodriguez by administering guanethidine nerve blocks to relieve the pain caused by the RSD. Between 1991 and 1995, Rodriguez received more than 100 nerve block tre
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|