2015 COA 30
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Claimant Brian Kilpatrick injured his left wrist at work in June 2011 and underwent surgery; he continued to have pain and sought additional surgery and treatment thereafter.
- Employer’s treating physician (Dr. Yamamoto) placed claimant at MMI with a 15% impairment in June 2012; employer filed a final admission of liability (FAL) which claimant did not challenge, so the FAL became final and unappealable.
- Later physicians (Dr. Conyers) recommended further surgery and Dr. Yamamoto signed notes in 2013 indicating he might rescind the MMI date; claimant petitioned to reopen his workers’ compensation claim alleging mistake/change in condition.
- Claimant served discovery seeking records of any gifts or financial ties between Pinnacol (the insurer) or employer’s counsel and PALJs/ALJs/Panel members; the PALJ denied the motion to compel as overly broad and burdensome.
- An ALJ held a hearing, received expert testimony (including Dr. Sollender), found Dr. Yamamoto’s later statements equivocal and denied reopening; the Panel affirmed and claimant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery of insurer’s gifts to PALJs/ALJs/Panel | Kilpatrick: entitled to discovery of any monetary gifts to adjudicators because public disclosures are unavailable | Employer: request is overbroad, irrelevant, harassing; disclosure obligations exist under the Code of Judicial Conduct and executive order | Denial of the discovery request was not an abuse of discretion; request was overly broad and claimant made no offer of proof |
| Equal protection re: financial disclosures | Kilpatrick: workers’ comp adjudicators lack the statutory disclosure regime of Article VI judges, creating unequal treatment | Employer/Panel: C.J.C., executive order, and statutes apply disclosure duties to ALJs/PALJs/Panel; disclosure regime is comparable | No equal protection violation; ALJs/PALJs/Panel fall within disclosure obligations and claimant was not treated differently |
| Effect of Dr. Yamamoto’s later notes rescinding MMI | Kilpatrick: ALJ was bound by Dr. Yamamoto’s February/August 2013 notes rescinding MMI | Employer/Panel: June 2012 MMI became final due to unchallenged FAL; ALJ may weigh conflicting ATP statements | ALJ permissibly found Yamamoto’s statements equivocal and was not bound to accept a retraction; substantial evidence supports denial to reopen |
| Evidentiary/discovery sanctions and trial fairness | Kilpatrick: employer failed to disclose MRIs/other evidence and counsel testified; ALJ’s rulings prejudiced him and warranted sanctions/remand | Employer: ALJ acted within discretion; MRIs were not admitted and testimony about them was allowed; no abuse of discretion | No abuse of discretion; ALJ’s evidentiary rulings (including denial of sanctions) were reasonable and did not warrant reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Belle Bonfils Mem. Blood Ctr. v. Dist. Ct., 763 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1988) (discovery scope and necessity where document access is critical to prosecution)
- Blue Mesa Forest v. Lopes, 928 P.2d 831 (Colo. App. 1996) (ALJ resolves conflicts in ATP MMI opinions; ALJ not automatically bound by one report)
- Williams v. Kunau, 147 P.3d 33 (Colo. 2006) (treating physician MMI + FAL becomes binding absent DIME/request within statutory period)
- Wilson v. Jim Snyder Drilling, 747 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1987) (reopening decision reversed only for fraud or clear abuse of discretion)
- Sheid v. Hewlett-Packard, 826 P.2d 396 (Colo. App. 1991) (tribunal may protect parties from discovery that causes annoyance, oppression, or undue hardship)
- Coates, Reid & Waldron v. Vigil, 856 P.2d 850 (Colo. 1993) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion standard)
- Youngs v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 297 P.3d 964 (Colo. App. 2012) (application of executive order and Code of Judicial Conduct to administrative judges)