Portercare Adventist Health System v. Lego
Supreme Court of Colorado
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Rice
T1 In this hospital debt collection action, we interpret section 18-80-108.5(1)(a), C.R.S. (2011), and hold that its six-year limitations period applies in cases, like this one, that arise out of an implied in fact contract for liquidated medical expenses. Contrary to the court of appeals' holding in Portercare v. Lego, - P.3d -, -, 2010 WL 3584394 (Colo.App.2010) (selected for official publication as modified), the applicability of section 13-80-103.5(1)(a) in the hospital debt context is not limited to cases where an agreement specifically sets forth an amount owed or a formula for…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lombard v. Colorado Outdoor Education Center, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2008
- Stamp v. Vail Corp.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2007
- Spahmer v. GulletteSupreme Court of Colorado · 2005
- Pearson v. District Court, Eighteenth Judicial District, County of ArapahoeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
- Rotenberg v. RichardsColorado Court of Appeals · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Gessler v. Colorado Common CauseSupreme Court of Colorado · 2014
- Torres-Vallejo v. CreativExteriors, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 2016
- Sobolewski v. Boselli & Sons, LLCDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2018
- Barnett v. Surefire Med., Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 2018
- Boulder Capital Group, Inc. v. LawsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.