2017 COA 145
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Claimant (Berthold) injured at work in June 2014 and initially treated by ATP Dr. Sharma.
- In late 2014 claimant requested and in Feb 2015 began treating with Dr. Miller after employer permission under § 8-43-404(5)(a)(VI).
- In Jan 2016 Dr. Sharma (who continued to see claimant for some appointments) declared claimant at MMI; employer filed a final admission of liability (FAL) relying on that MMI.
- Claimant challenged the FAL, arguing Dr. Sharma was no longer an authorized treating physician (ATP) when he issued MMI because (a) § 8-43-404(5)(a)(IV)(C) automatically terminates the prior ATP upon treatment with a new ATP, or (b) the 2016 amendment to § 8-43-404(5)(a)(VI)(B) (added automatic termination) applies retroactively.
- The Panel held the 2016 amendment did not apply to changes granted before its effective date and that § 8-43-404(5)(a)(IV) applies only to one-time changes under § 8-43-404(5)(a)(III); the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2016 amendment to § 8-43-404(5)(a)(VI)(B) (automatic termination when claimant begins treatment with a new ATP) applies to claimant’s physician change made before the amendment’s effective date | The legislative declaration that the amendment applies to all claims makes it apply to completed transactions within pending claims, so it should invalidate Dr. Sharma’s ATP status | The amendment is procedural and applies prospectively to transactions occurring after its effective date; it does not retroactively terminate ATP relationships that arose before the amendment | Amendment is prospective as to transactions; it does not apply to claimant’s 2015 physician-change request; Dr. Sharma remained an ATP for purposes of his MMI finding |
| Whether § 8-43-404(5)(a)(IV)(C) (termination of originally authorized treating physician upon visit to newly authorized treating physician) applies to all changes of physician or only to one-time changes under § 8-43-404(5)(a)(III) | § IV(C) should be read independently and thus terminate any prior ATP once a claimant begins treatment with a new ATP | § III and § IV were enacted together and operate in tandem; § IV’s termination language is limited to the one-time change procedure in § III; § VI separately governs other changes | § IV applies only to one-time changes under § III; it does not apply to claimant’s § VI-authorized change, so Dr. Sharma’s ATP status was not automatically terminated |
Key Cases Cited
- Specialty Rests. Corp. v. Nelson, 231 P.3d 393 (Colo. 2010) (statutory amendments presumptively prospective; procedural changes apply to transactions after effective date)
- Am. Comp. Ins. Co. v. McBride, 107 P.3d 973 (Colo. App. 2004) (substantive rights tied to statute at time of injury; procedural changes can apply during pendency)
- Rosa v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 885 P.2d 331 (Colo. App. 1994) (statute in effect at time of injury governs rights unless legislature indicates otherwise)
- Walgreen Co. v. Charnes, 819 P.2d 1039 (Colo. 1991) (legislative declaration is a key indicator of intent but must be read in context)
- Lombard v. Colo. Outdoor Educ. Ctr., Inc., 187 P.3d 565 (Colo. 2008) (give effect to every word of statutory text when construing statutes)