For the second time in under a year, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned a Denver judge’s order in a long-running civil lawsuit over hospital billing practices that has yet to reach trial.

Justice Richard L. Gabriel, in the court’s April 14 opinion, observed there continues to be a misunderstanding about the information relevant to deciding the case — and the basics have not changed since the Supreme Court last provided guidance.

“The legal and factual issues in this case are narrow,” he wrote.

Jina Garcia filed suit in 2017 against Centura Health. 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.

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 2024, Denver District Court Judge Andrew J. Luxen agreed Garcia needed to provide Centura with requested materials. 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 last 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.”

Once more, the Supreme Court directed everyone involved to respond to the petition. Centura maintained it needed certain information to combat the class-action claims, and argued it would be subject to an “enormous” penalty for conduct that “harmed no one.”

“If Garcia’s accident was determined to be her fault, she would not even qualify for membership in the class she purports to represent,” Centura’s lawyers argued. They also contended that Centura’s practice of issuing “inflated” charges to customers could not be used as evidence of the actual amount Centura ended up collecting.

None of that was relevant, Garcia’s attorneys countered.

“The only issues relevant to Garcia’s claim are 1) did Centura assert a lien, 2) against whom, 3) was the lien asserted before billing Medicare, and 4) and, if so, in what amount,” they wrote. “This is all information in Centura’s possession.”

The Supreme Court agreed.

Centura “ignores the facts that its own records indicate that it had determined that Garcia had been injured through the negligence of another,” wrote Gabriel. Therefore, state law required Centura to bill insurance first, and only then file a lien against Garcia and the other class members.

“This case is not a litigation on the merits of the underlying motor vehicle accident,” he added.

The Supreme Court overturned Gerdes’ order, finding Garcia did not have to respond to any of the irrelevant requests for documentation. If she prevails, Garcia will be entitled to twice the amount of Centura’s erroneous lien — which, in her case, was $2,170.35.

The case is Garcia v. Centura Health Corp.