Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2011/11/08/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 19:11:42+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Supreme Court will stream the audio live online from the oral arguments of the hearing for the reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly. Oral arguments on the contentious issue are scheduled for November 9, 2011, from 9:00 am to 11:00 am at the Old Supreme Court Courtroom in the Capitol Building.
Click here to listen to the oral arguments live.
Editor’s Note: The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on November 7, 2011.
In Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (No. 11SA66) the Colorado Supreme Court held that publicly available documents need not be disclosed pursuant to Rule 26.
In this case the plaintiff slipped and injured herself on a grease spill at a Wal-Mart store. At trial, as it had throughout discovery, Wal-Mart claimed that no such grease spill had occurred. The plaintiff impeached this testimony with questions based on a previously unproduced report from the City of Greeley documenting a grease spill that it had located during the trial. After its objection to the use of the report was denied by the trial court, Wal-Mart entered the report into evidence while rehabilitating its witness. The next morning, Wal-Mart informed the plaintiff that it had located a witness who remembered the spill, and numerous documents corroborating the existence of the spill. After it (not surprisingly) lost at trial, Wal-Mart sought and received a mistrial based in part on the plaintiffs’ purported failure to disclose the Greeley report.
Interestingly no one commented on the irony of Wal-Mart, which appears to have violated its discovery obligations by concealing (or at least failing to locate) documents and a witness relating to the spill, being the party complaining about a failure of disclosure.
Aaron Solomon is an associate at Hale Westfall and focuses his practice on both commercial litigation and public policy/appellate law. He contributes to the firm’s Rocky Mountain Appellate Blog, where this post originally appeared on November 7, 2011.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Ortega v. Colorado Permanente Medical Group, P.C. on November 7, 2011.
Physician–Patient Privilege—Health Maintenance Organization—Confidentiality Requirements.
The Supreme Court held that CRS § 13-90-107(1)(d)(I) provides an exception to the physician–patient privilege codified in CRS § 13-90-107(1)(d). The exception applies when a patient institutes an action against a physician, and that action arises out of or is connected with the physician’s care or treatment of the patient. In that instance, the information acquired by the physician is not privileged.
The Court also held that CRS § 10-16-423 does not govern the physician–patient privilege; instead, it governs the confidentiality of health maintenance organization (HMO) members’ information. CRS § 10-16-423 controls the confidentiality of enrollee information provided to HMOs by enrollees and medical providers, and contains an exception for the disclosure of relevant information in the event a claim or litigation occurs between the HMO and the enrollee.
Finally, the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and determined that plaintiff’s electronic medical record was relevant to preparing a defense. Accordingly, the Court discharged the rule to show cause.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Lopez-Macias on Monday, November 7, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision and sentence. Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, was arrested following a routine traffic stop on suspicion of marijuana trafficking. “Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials interviewed [Petitioner[ while he was in Colorado custody and determined his illegal status. A federal grand jury subsequently indicted Defendant in the District of Colorado for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction.” Petitioner appeals the sentence imposed by the district court.
On Monday, November 7, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and one unpublished opinion.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 § 13
 § 10
 § 10
 v.