The Colorado Supreme Court announced this week that it may intervene in two ongoing civil lawsuits implicating the disclosure of information the parties argue is shielded.

At least four of the court’s seven members must agree to take up an appeal directly from the trial courts, in contrast to three votes needed to review a decision by the Court of Appeals.

The justices also narrowly turned down a request to analyze the appellate court’s interpretation of Colorado’s “rape shield” law.

Another complaint about long-running class action

In an unusual move, the Supreme Court, for the second time this year, is turning to the same plaintiff’s allegations that a trial judge incorrectly ordered disclosure of irrelevant or confidential information to the defense.

#dsk-box-ad-e.new-ad-loading [id*=”-outstream-icon”] {display: none !important;}[id*=”-outstream-icon”],[id*=”-outstream-icon”] > img {width: 24px;height: 24px;display: block;cursor: pointer !important;font-size: 24px !important;line-height: 1 !important;max-width: unset !important;vertical-align: unset !important;box-shadow: unset !important;}[id*=”-outstream-icon”]:hover {filter: drop-shadow(black 0px 0px 6px);}#bottom-controls_videoPlayer_2299 {position: absolute;bottom: 5px;left: 5px;display: grid;grid-template-columns: 24px 24px;}#tpd-volume-control_videoPlayer_2299.muted > #volume-on-outstream-icon_videoPlayer_2299,#tpd-volume-control_videoPlayer_2299:not(.muted) > #volume-muted-outstream-icon_videoPlayer_2299 {display: none;}#tpd-play-pause-control_videoPlayer_2299[playing=”true”] > #click-to-play-outstream-icon,#tpd-play-pause-control_videoPlayer_2299[playing=”false”] > #click-to-pause-outstream-icon {display: none;}@media (max-width: 770px) { #dsk-box-ad-e.new-ad-loading iframe[src],#dsk-box-ad-e.new-ad-loading video {display: none !important;} } #dsk-box-ad-e.new-ad-loading #ad-container_videoPlayer_2299 {background: #5a585830 !important;mask: linear-gradient(315deg, #000 30%, #88888855, #000 70%) right / 350% 100%;animation: tpd-shimmer 1.15s infinite;}@keyframes tpd-shimmer {100% {mask-position: left}}#dsk-box-ad-e:not(.new-ad-loading) {background: black;}#dsk-box-ad-e {opacity: 1;animation-name: fadeInOpacity;animation-iteration-count: 1;animation-timing-function: ease-in;animation-duration: 0.75s;}@keyframes fadeInOpacity {0% {opacity: 0;}100% {opacity: 1;}}#dsk-box-ad-e.new-ad-loading #progress-row_videoPlayer_2299,#dsk-box-ad-e.has-countdown #progress-row_videoPlayer_2299 {display: none;}#progress-row_videoPlayer_2299 {width: 100%;display: block;bottom: 0px;position: absolute;}#dsk-box-ad-e.new-ad-loading #progressLabel-container_videoPlayer_2299 {display: none;}@media (max-width: 770px) { #progressLabel-container_videoPlayer_2299 {display: none;} } #dsk-box-ad-e.has-countdown #progressLabel-container_videoPlayer_2299 {display: none;}#progressLabel-container_videoPlayer_2299 {width: 640px;position: absolute;bottom: 15px;height: 0px;}#progressLabel_videoPlayer_2299 {color: white;font-size: 7pt;font-family: Arial, Sans-Serif;text-align: center;width: fit-content;height: 5px;margin: auto;}#progressBar_videoPlayer_2299 {width: 640px;height: 3px;background-color: lightgray;}#progress_videoPlayer_2299 {height: 100%;background-color: cornflowerblue;width: 0;}#dsk-box-ad-e:not(.replay) #replay-outstream-container_videoPlayer_2299 {display: none !important;}#dsk-box-ad-e.replay #replay-outstream-container_videoPlayer_2299 {display: flex;height: 100%;width: 100%;z-index: 99;position: relative;background: black;}#dsk-box-ad-e.replay #replay-outstream-icon_videoPlayer_2299 {width: 30px;height: 30px;margin: auto;position: relative;background-image: url(‘data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg fill=”white” height=”30px” width=”30px” xmlns=”https://www.w3.org/2000/svg” viewBox=”0 0 74.999 74.999″ xml:space=”preserve” stroke=”black”%3E%3Cpath d=”M33.511 71.013c15.487 0 28.551-10.563 32.375-24.859h9.113L61.055 22 47.111 46.151h8.006c-3.44 8.563-11.826 14.628-21.605 14.628-12.837 0-23.28-10.443-23.28-23.28 0-12.836 10.443-23.28 23.28-23.28 6.604 0 12.566 2.768 16.809 7.196l5.258-9.108c-5.898-5.176-13.619-8.32-22.065-8.32C15.034 3.987 0 19.019 0 37.5c-.002 18.481 15.03 33.513 33.511 33.513z”/%3E%3C/svg%3E’);}#dsk-box-ad-e.replay #bottom-controls_videoPlayer_2299_videoPlayer_2299,#dsk-box-ad-e.replay [id*=”-outstream-icon”]:not([id^=”replay-outstream-icon”]) {display: none !important;}#dsk-box-ad-e.replay #video-container_videoPlayer_2299 {display: none !important;}#dsk-box-ad-e {margin-left: auto;margin-right: auto;}/* Main Styling */#dsk-box-ad-e.first-render {display: none !important;}#page-content_videoPlayer_2299 {display: inline-block;}#video-container_videoPlayer_2299 {position: relative;}#video-element_videoPlayer_2299 {position: absolute;top: 0;left: 0;}/* Some providers inject their ad content into the video element *//* but if not we hide it. */#video-element_videoPlayer_2299:not([src]) {display: none;}#ad-container_videoPlayer_2299 {position: absolute;top: 0;left: 0;cursor: pointer;}#dsk-box-ad-e,#page-content_videoPlayer_2299,#video-container_videoPlayer_2299,#video-element_videoPlayer_2299,#ad-container_videoPlayer_2299 {width: 640px;height: 360px;}#dsk-box-ad-e div[id*=”google_ads_iframe_”] {width: 640px !important;height: 360px !important;z-index: -1;position: absolute;}

Advertisement: -2 sec

Jina Garcia filed suit nearly seven years ago against Centura Health but has yet to receive a trial. She is pursuing class action claims that the hospital operator improperly filed liens — claims against a person’s property to satisfy a debt — against people who have insurance, which Centura is obligated to bill first under Colorado law. Various appeals have delayed the case since it began in 2017.

Previously, Centura requested certain documents and communications from Garcia, including her credit reports, insurance documents and any claims she made related to the automobile accident that landed her in the hospital. Centura argued the information was relevant to Garcia’s alleged injuries and the payment of her medical expenses.

In January, Denver District Court Judge Andrew J. Luxen agreed Garcia needed to provide Centura with the requested documentation. Garcia then appealed directly to the Supreme Court, arguing Colorado law is clear: If Centura created a lien and did it before billing her insurance, then it is liable.

“No other facts are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case,” her lawyers wrote.

In an unsigned, three-page order in May, the Supreme Court agreed Luxen misunderstood how to evaluate Centura’s request for information and directed a redo of the decision with specific findings and a proper analysis.

Four months later, Garcia again asked the Supreme Court to step in. She now alleged District Court Judge Kandace C. Gerdes, the regularly assigned judge for whom Luxen was filling in, had now made the same mistake and once more improperly ordered disclosure of unwarranted details.

“This Court could not have been clearer about the analysis it required the district court to do,” Garcia’s attorneys wrote. “Had the district court made the determination and specific findings this Court directed, it would not have ordered discovery of ‘documents and communications’ regarding Garcia’s medical information, financial, attorney records and communications, overriding the privacy and confidentiality concerns asserted by Garcia.”

On Oct. 9, the Supreme Court ordered Gerdes and Centura to respond to Garcia’s petition.

The case is Garcia v. Centura Health Corp.

Medical records

Eugene Jennings was driving a truck through Custer County in July 2022 when it overturned on a curve and killed motorist Timothy Trenshaw. Trenshaw’s son then filed a wrongful death suit against Jennings and his employer.

Jennings learned that the plaintiff had obtained from the district attorney’s office the records of Jennings’ medical treatment following the accident. Jennings asked that the court deem the records confidential, and then-District Court Judge Lynette M. Wenner originally agreed with him.

However, she later reversed course and decided they were not protected by patient-physician privilege. Jennings alleged Wenner reached that conclusion by improperly going “sentence-by-sentence” to decide whether the contents related to necessary medical treatment.

“Colorado law forbids what the district court did here. The patient-physician privilege protects all medical records,” his lawyers wrote.

They elaborated that the purpose of patient-physician confidentiality is to facilitate candid discussions that will help doctors treat their patients. That goal would be compromised, Jennings contended, if patients knew a judge would comb through each recorded statement after the fact to decide what was confidential.

The Supreme Court ordered a response on Oct. 10 to Jennings’ request that all copies of his medical records in the plaintiff’s possession be destroyed and shielded from future disclosure.

The case is Trenshaw v. Jennings.

Evidence of a victim’s motive

Finally, the court fell one vote short of accepting a criminal appeal out of Boulder County.

Jose Gilberto Contreras-Guzman stood trial in 2016 on multiple charges of sexually assaulting an 8-year-old relative. The prosecution argued the victim spoke out about the abuse after attending a “body safety” presentation at school, where topics included “safe” and “unsafe” touching. Contreras-Guzman offered multiple defenses at trial, but jurors convicted him and he received a sentence of 18 years to life in prison.

Before trial, Contreras-Guzman attempted to introduce evidence calling the victim’s motive to accuse him into question. Contreras-Guzman and his wife allegedly discovered the victim had engaged in “sexualized play” with their daughter. After confronting the victim and threatening to tell her parents, she became upset and shortly afterward accused Contreras-Guzman of abusing her.

A trial judge barred jurors from hearing about the confrontation, believing it fell under the rape shield law, which prohibits unwarranted explorations of a victim’s sexual history. But the Court of Appeals found the excluded allegations were relevant and potentially affected the outcome of the case.

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office challenged the appellate court’s decision to order a new trial, claiming it had created a new exception to the rape shield law allowing for evidence whenever a victim has a “motive to lie.”

Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez and Justice Brian D. Boatright indicated they would have reviewed the Court of Appeals’ decision. Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter did not participate, as she was the trial judge in the underlying case prior to joining the Supreme Court.

The case is People v. Contreras-Guzman.