Hickman v. Catholic Health Initiatives
2013 WL 4727266
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Kathleen Hickman suffered a knee injury in 2011 and later underwent an amputation allegedly resulting from negligent care by a physician credentialed at St. Anthony Hospital.
- Hickman and her husband filed suit on January 23, 2013, asserting negligent credentialing against the hospital and malpractice against the physician.
- Colorado's pre-2012 statute provided hospitals immunity from damages for peer-review/credentialing-related claims; a 2012 amendment (effective July 1, 2012) abrogated that immunity for credentialing decisions.
- The hospital moved to dismiss on grounds of statutory immunity under the former (1989) statute; plaintiffs argued the 2012 statute applied to actions filed on or after July 1, 2012.
- The trial court denied the hospital's motion, concluding the 2012 statute clearly applied retroactively to actions filed on or after July 1, 2012 and that such retroactive application was not unconstitutionally retrospective.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding the effective-date language governs (actions filed on or after the date), and that retroactive application does not impair a vested right nor create a constitutionally significant new duty or disability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the 2012 statute apply to this suit when the alleged credentialing and injury occurred before July 1, 2012 but the complaint was filed after that date? | 2012 statute applies because it governs "actions filed on or after July 1, 2012." | Statute should not apply retroactively to pre-effective-date credentialing/injuries; immunity under the former statute remains. | The statute's plain effective-date language shows clear legislative intent to apply to actions filed on or after July 1, 2012; it applies. |
| If the statute applies retroactively, is that application unconstitutional as "retrospective" under the Colorado Constitution? | Retroactive application is constitutional because it does not impair vested rights or impose a new constitutional disability. | Retroactive application is unconstitutional because it affects an existing right of defense (immunity) and is unfair. | Retroactive application is not unconstitutionally retrospective: no vested contract/property right; immunity is not a vested right; no new constitutional duty or disability. |
| Does abrogation of immunity create a new obligation/duty or attach a constitutionally significant disability? | Abrogation merely removes immunity from damages and is remedial; hospitals in a regulated industry cannot claim unexpected disability. | Removing immunity is substantive and imposes a new liability that is retrospective. | Removing immunity is remedial (affects remedy, not vested right) and does not impose a constitutional disability of magnitude. |
| Is the effective-date clause ambiguous because it appears in a different subsection than the abrogation provision? | N/A (plaintiffs argue the clause applies to subsection (2) as amended). | The effective-date clause in (2)(c) cannot impose retroactivity on (2)(a) abrogating immunity. | Clause applies to "this subsection (2), as amended," so read in context it plainly governs the abrogation; court gives harmonious effect to statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813 (Colo. App. 2007) (discusses former statutory immunity for hospitals and negligent credentialing claims)
- City of Golden v. Parker, 138 P.3d 285 (Colo. 2006) (presumption statutes operate prospectively unless clear retroactive intent)
- Ficarra v. Department of Regulatory Agencies, 849 P.2d 6 (Colo. 1993) (distinguishes retroactive application from unconstitutional retrospective legislation)
- In re Estate of DeWitt, 54 P.3d 849 (Colo. 2002) (framework for vested-rights and new-duty tests in retroactivity analysis)
- Shell W. E & P, Inc. v. Dolores County Board of Commissioners, 948 P.2d 1002 (Colo. 1997) (legislative intent need not be explicitly expressed; remedial/procedural changes can be retroactive)