2021 CO 82
Colo.2021Background
- Aug. 2016: Maribel Ronquillo was rear-ended, suffered serious injuries and incurred about $250,000 in medical charges.
- Ronquillo had no health insurance and entered a medical-finance lien with Injury Finance, which purchased her providers’ accounts receivable at a discount and obtained a lien on any settlement or verdict.
- Under the contract, Injury Finance could collect the full billed amounts from Ronquillo and Ronquillo remained personally liable for those full billed amounts regardless of litigation outcome.
- Defendants subpoenaed Injury Finance; the district court ruled Injury Finance is not a collateral source and allowed admission of evidence about amounts billed/paid and the parties’ relationship.
- Plaintiffs sought interlocutory review under C.A.R. 21 challenging that statutory ruling and the court’s evidentiary conclusions; meanwhile the General Assembly enacted HB 21‑1300 altering rules for medical‑finance liens going forward.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a medical‑finance company (Injury Finance) is a "collateral source" under the pre‑verdict evidentiary statute §10‑1‑135(10)(a) | Injury Finance paid providers (at a discount) and thus provided a "benefit"/payment that should be excluded from evidence | Injury Finance did not indemnify, reimburse, or reduce Ronquillo’s obligations—it functions as a creditor and Ronquillo remains liable for full billed amounts | Injury Finance is not a collateral source (statutory interpretation affirmed) |
| Whether defendants may introduce evidence of amounts billed/paid and the relationship with Injury Finance at trial | Such evidence is irrelevant/misleading under the collateral‑source rule and should be excluded | Evidence is relevant to bias, motive, interest, and reasonable value of services | Majority expressed no view and left admissibility to district court on remand; concurrence/dissent would require district court to reassess admissibility under CRE 401/403 and would bar the challenged evidence now |
| Whether HB 21‑1300 (post‑petition statute) affects this case | Statute shows legislature treats medical‑finance liens as providing benefits and bars discovery/admission of such lien details | The new statute changes future liens but does not apply to Ronquillo's existing agreement | HB 21‑1300 alters the legal landscape going forward but does not control the parties’ existing lien; it does not change the court’s statutory holding here |
Key Cases Cited
- Colo. Permanente Med. Grp., P.C. v. Evans, 926 P.2d 1218 (Colo. 1996) (articulates common‑law collateral‑source principle and exclusion of collateral source evidence)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Crossgrove, 276 P.3d 562 (Colo. 2012) (explains pre‑verdict evidentiary component and reviews collateral‑source issues)
- Smith v. Jeppsen, 277 P.3d 224 (Colo. 2012) (interprets and recognizes §10‑1‑135(10)(a) as codifying the pre‑verdict rule)
- Volunteers of Am. Colo. Branch v. Gardenswartz, 242 P.3d 1080 (Colo. 2010) (discusses the contract exception and how subrogation and reimbursement affect double recovery)