The Colorado Supreme Court rejected a hospital’s argument on Monday that judges have broad authority to recalculate a jury’s monetary award to plaintiffs injured by medical malpractice.

Under state law, damages in medical malpractice lawsuits are generally capped at $1 million as part of a 1988 policy change intended to curb the costs of medicine and ensure continued availability of health care. There is a safety valve, however, permitting trial judges to override the cap if there is “good cause” to believe the limitation is unfair.

But the law provides no explicit roadmap about what judges are supposed to do once they override the cap to arrive at an ultimate dollar figure. Previously, the state’s Court of Appeals decided judges do not always have to accept the jury’s amount, but they may uphold the award in full if it is not “grossly and manifestly excessive.”

In an Oct. 20 opinion, the Supreme Court agreed with that assessment.

Once a judge “opens the gate and authorizes a damage award beyond the cap, we believe the legislature intended for the jury to retain its common-law authority to determine the appropriate amount of damages,” wrote Justice William W. Hood III.

Chance and Erin Gresser brought a medical negligence claim against Banner Health, alleging staff delayed treatment for their newborn daughter’s infection and caused extensive, lifelong injuries. After a 2022 trial, a Weld County jury awarded the Gressers $27.6 million, largely for their daughter’s past and future medical costs. With interest, the total award was $39.8 million.

District Court Judge Todd Taylor concluded the long-lasting injuries, the need for Erin Gresser to provide care around the clock and the costs of medical treatment amounted to good cause to override the $1 million cap. In his view, the decision was binary: A judge can either impose the cap or override it and accept the jury’s full award. Taylor concluded “substantial evidence” supported the dollar figure the jury chose.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel disagreed slightly with Taylor. The panel rejected the idea that judges are obligated to simply accept the jury’s calculation if they override the cap. Instead, they can adjust the jury’s award if it is “grossly and manifestly excessive.” Because Taylor ultimately found the evidence justified the amount, the Court of Appeals upheld the award.

Banner Health appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing juries’ full awards will always be upheld under that standard. The hospital and the outside groups supporting it argued lawmakers had effectively replaced jury verdicts with the $1 million cap, and “additional damages” above that threshold should be reviewed for fairness — including fairness to defendants.

During oral arguments, Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter wondered if that logic meant trial judges could possibly increase a jury’s award to the plaintiff in the name of fairness. Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. was unsure why there should effectively be a second, mini-trial to recalculate the damages.

“What’s the point of having the jury sit through a trial, determine damages and then if the cap gets exceeded, basically say, ‘The court’s gonna do whatever the court’s gonna do?'” he asked.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed judges should not be reviewing a jury’s award for fairness. Instead, they can apply their longstanding power to check egregious verdicts, as the Court of Appeals recognized.

The justices concluded the lower courts correctly upheld the jury’s award to the Gressers.

The case is Banner Health v. Gresser et al.