Joseph A. GILL and Jani P. Gill v. Christopher Allen WALTZ and Swift Transportation Company, LLC, 2021 CO 21

In December 2015 Joseph Gill was injured in an on-the-job car accident involving a Swift truck and driver Christopher Waltz.
Gill received workers’ compensation medical benefits from Pinnacol; providers billed $627,809.76 but Pinnacol paid substantially less under statutory caps.
Pinnacol pursued and settled its subrogation claim against Swift for the medical payments it had made.
Gill (and his wife) sued Swift and Waltz in federal court for damages arising from the accident; the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
Conflicting authorities at the trial/federal and Colorado Court of Appeals levels (e.g., Lebsack and Scholle) created uncertainty about whether an insurer’s settlement of a subrogation claim extinguishes the employee’s right to recover medical expenses; the district court certified two questions to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Colorado Supreme Court answered: Pinnacol’s settlement extinguished Gill’s claim for past medical expenses covered by Pinnacol; Gill may still pursue noneconomic damages and any economic losses not covered by workers’ compensation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Does an employee have standing to seek damages for medical expenses paid by a workers’ comp insurer after the insurer settled its subrogation claim with the tortfeasor?	Gill: insurer’s subrogation claim is limited to amounts actually paid; employee retains claim for the difference between billed and paid amounts.	Swift: insurer’s subrogation, once settled, extinguishes the employee’s claim to the same medical expenses because insurer stood in the employee’s shoes.	Held: The insurer’s settlement extinguishes the employee’s claim for the medical services covered by the insurer.
2) May a plaintiff introduce evidence of billed medical amounts when the tortfeasor paid those amounts by settling the insurer’s subrogation claim?	Gill: billed amounts remain relevant and admissible; collateral source rule bars admission of amounts paid by insurer.	Swift: no claim survives for amounts covered by insurer, so evidence of billed/paid amounts is irrelevant; collateral source rule not implicated.	Held: No reason to admit billed or paid amounts for services covered by the insurer; the pre-verdict evidentiary component of the collateral source rule is not implicated.

Joseph A. Gill v. Christopher Allen Waltz & Swift Transportation Co., LLC, 484 P.3d 691 (Colo. 2021) (Colorado Supreme Court holds a workers’ compensation insurer’s settlement of its subrogation claim extinguishes the injured employee’s claim for past medical expenses covered by the insurer; employee may still pursue noneconomic damages and economic damages not covered by workers’ compensation.)