City of Arvada ex rel. Arvada Police Department v. Denver Health and Hospital Authority
2017 CO 97
| Colo. | 2017Background
- Arvada police detained Terry Ross after he shot himself and transported him to Denver Health, which provided emergency medical care while officers guarded him.
- Ross’s estate paid about $6,000; Denver Health billed Arvada for the remaining ~ $29,000 when Ross did not pay.
- Denver Health sued Arvada asserting (1) a statutory right to recover under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-401 and (2) an implied-contract/unjust-enrichment claim; Arvada argued no private right of action existed and that the CGIA barred recovery.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Denver Health on the statutory claim; the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed relying on Poudre Valley Health Care.
- Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether § 16-3-401 creates a private right of action and whether Denver Health’s unjust-enrichment claim is barred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA).
- The Supreme Court held the statute does not create a private right of action for medical providers but remanded the unjust-enrichment claim for further proceedings, finding it not barred by the CGIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 16-3-401 creates a private right of action allowing a hospital to sue a custodian for medical costs | Denver Health: statute obligates custodians to provide medical care, so providers who rendered that care can recover from custodians | Arvada: statute does not create a private cause of action; remedy creation is legislative, not judicial | Court: No. Under Parfrey factors, §16-3-401 does not create an implied private right of action for providers |
| Whether implied-right analysis differs depending on defendant being governmental | Denver Health: statutory duty should allow remedy against government like against private parties | Arvada: governmental context affects analysis (sovereign immunity concerns) | Court: Same Parfrey implied-right test applies regardless of government or private defendant |
| Whether Denver Health’s unjust-enrichment (implied-in-law contract) claim survives | Denver Health: even if statute gives no private remedy, unjust enrichment may require Arvada to disgorge benefit | Arvada: no benefit or legal duty to pay; CGIA bars claims that are tortious in nature | Court: Unjust-enrichment survives as equitable/contract-like claim and was not decided by lower courts; remand for consideration |
| Whether CGIA bars Denver Health’s unjust-enrichment claim | Arvada: CGIA bars public-entity liability for claims that lie in tort or could lie in tort | Denver Health: unjust-enrichment is contractual/equitable, not tort | Court: CGIA does not bar this unjust-enrichment claim because it cannot fairly be characterized as a tort claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Parfrey, 830 P.2d 905 (Colo. 1992) (establishes three-factor test for implying private statutory causes of action)
- State v. Moldovan, 842 P.2d 220 (Colo. 1992) (applies implied-right analysis against state defendant)
- Quintano v. Industrial Commission, 495 P.2d 1137 (Colo. 1972) (refuses to infer private remedy absent clear legislative intent)
- Robinson v. Colorado State Lottery Division, 179 P.3d 998 (Colo. 2008) (framework for whether a claim lies in tort for CGIA purposes)
- Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. v. City of Loveland, 85 P.3d 558 (Colo. App. 2003) (court of appeals decision the Supreme Court disapproved to the extent it conflicted with this opinion)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (Eighth Amendment establishes duty to provide care to convicted prisoners; cited for historical/constitutional context)