Have a link to an article or post that relates to the Colorado appellate courts? Email us!
On August 12, 2014, the Tenth Circuit released two published civil cases.
In Holmes v. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Long Term Disability Plan (No. 13-1175), the plaintiff appealed the district court’s ruling that her claim for ERISA disability benefits was barred by her failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, setting forth the analytical framework for determining a claimant’s obligations for internal review before filing suit: first, examine the plan’s requirements, and then consider the extent to which other non-conflicting terms have been authorized or reflected in the plan. Here, the plan stated that after initial review, a claimant would be advised of further appeal rights, and the plaintiff was so advised that a two-tier review system was required. On the other hand, the court found that the summary plan description was deficient in advising of the appeal procedure, but the plaintiff did not establish that she lacked notice of the proper procedure or that the deficient summary plan description caused her any confusion.
In Al-Turki v. Robinson (No. 13-1107), Robinson – a former nurse at a Colorado state correctional facility – appealed the district court’s denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in a § 1983 case alleging Eighth Amendment violations. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, applying established precedent that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment extends to “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” caused by prison officials’ “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.” The court held that Al-Turki’s medical condition was “‘sufficiently serious” to be cognizable under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. Al-Turki had collapsed, vomited, and believed he was dying for several hours, while Robinson refused to even examine him. Nor was the court persuaded by Robinson’s argument that the law was not clearly established at the time of her actions, thus entitling her to qualified immunity. Robinson’s focus on the facts that she later learned was not the proper inquiry. Instead, the court looked at what Robinson knew at the time Al-Turki requested medical attention and, at that time, a reasonable officer in Robinson’s position would have known it was unlawful to refuse medical treatment.
In Salzer v. SSM Health Care of Oklahoma, Inc., (No. 13-6099), the court considered whether the district court properly denied a motion to remand. Salzer had filed a class action complaint against SSM for breach of contract and other state law claims based on SSM’s attempt to collect payment for medical services from Salzer instead of his health insurance company. SSM removed the case to federal court, and Salzer filed a motion to remand. The district court denied the motion to remand, concluding that Salzer’s claims were preempted by ERISA. Salzer later amended his complaint and asserted new state law claims. SSM then moved to dismiss, arguing that Salzer failed to state any claims under ERISA. The court granted the motion to dismiss.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit first noted that the propriety of removal is judged at the time of the removal, so the amended complaint was irrelevant. After analyzing the six claims alleged in the original complaint, the court concluded that five of the six were not preempted by ERISA; but one — for tortious interference with contract – was preempted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to remand. Salzer did not challenge the dismissal with prejudice of the claims in his amended complaint in his Opening Brief, and the Tenth Circuit found those issues were forfeited on appeal.
Colorado Appeals 