CO Code § 27-92-101 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 27 - Behavioral Health|Article 92 - Institutions - Charges for Patients|§ 27-92-101. Liability

  When a person is admitted, committed, or transferred to a public institution of this state supervised by the department of human services for the care, support, maintenance, education, or treatment of persons with mental health disorders, the person, his or her spouse, and his or her parents are liable for the costs of his or her care, support, maintenance, and treatment to the extent and in the manner provided in this article 92. No other relatives of the person are liable to any extent for such costs.    This article 92 also applies to those persons received pursuant to article 8 of title 16 and sections 16-13-216, 19-2.5-1525, and 19-2.5-1532, but not by way of exclusion.     History. Source: L. 2010: Entire article added with relocations,(SB 10-175), ch. 188, p. 771, § 2, effective April 29. L. 2017: (1) amended,(SB 17-242), ch. 263, p. 1376, § 295, effective May 25. L. 2021: (2) amended,(SB 21-059), ch. 136, p. 751, § 136, effective October 1.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 27-12-101 as it existed prior to 2010.   Cross references:   For the legislative declaration in SB 17-242, see section 1 of chapter 263, Session Laws of Colorado 2017.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Liability of Counties for Support of Inmates in State Institutions”, see 29 Dicta 27 (1952). For article, “Commitment Procedures in Colorado”, see 29 Dicta 273 (1952). For comment on State v. Estate of Burnell (165 Colo. 205 , 439 P.2d 38 (1969)), appearing below, see 45 Den. L.J. 788 (1968). For article, “Protecting the Mentally Incompetent Child's Trust Interest from State Reimbursement Claims”, see 58 Den. L.J. 557 (1981).   Annotator's note. Since § 27-92-101 is similar to § 27-12-101 as it existed prior to the 2010 amendments to this article, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.   Statutory scheme in this article is clear and unambiguous. State v. Schleiger, 37 Colo. App. 195, 547 P.2d 1295 (1975), aff'd, 193 Colo. 531 , 568 P.2d 441 (1977).   For constitutionality of section, see Wigington v. State Home & Training Sch., 175 Colo. 159 , 486 P.2d 417 (1971).   There is no constitutional inequality in requiring those receiving more expensive care to be liable for additional costs through assets which they may have accumulated. State v. Estate of Burnell, 165 Colo. 205 , 439 P.2d 38, appeal dismissed per curiam, 393 U.S. 13, 89 S. Ct. 46, 21 L. Ed. 2d 13, reh'g denied, 393 U.S. 992, 89 S. Ct. 441, 21 L. Ed. 2d 458 (1968).   A mental patient who voluntarily works in a state hospital and is not paid for such services is not unconstitutionally denied equal protection of the laws or subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude. In re Estate of Buzzelle v. Colo. State Hosp., 176 Colo. 554 , 491 P.2d 1369 (1971).   This section provides the remedy for collection for maintenance of a mentally ill or deficient pauper from his relatives while an inmate at the state hospital. People ex rel. Zimmerman v. Herder, 122 Colo. 456 , 223 P.2d 197 (1950).   This section clearly imposes liability on the estate of a criminally insane person who is committed or transferred to a public institution operated by the state of Colorado for care and maintenance. State v. Estate of Burnell, 165 Colo. 205 , 439 P.2d 38, appeal dismissed per curiam, 393 U.S. 13, 89 S. Ct. 46, 21 L. Ed. 2d 13, reh'g denied, 393 U.S. 992, 89 S. Ct. 441, 21 L. Ed. 2d 458 (1968).   Imposition of liability in derogation of common law. The imposition of liability upon relatives for the costs of care and maintenance of mental incompetents confined in mental institutions is in derogation of the common law. At common law it was the rule that in the absence of express contract or fraud, public authorities could not recover either from the person confined, from his estate, or from those under a common-law duty to support him, the expenses incurred on account of the committed patient. In re Estate of Randall v. Colo. State Hosp., 166 Colo. 1 , 441 P.2d 153 (1968).   A statute imposing liability where none previously existed must be strictly construed in favor of the person against whom its provisions are intended to be applied. In re Estate of Randall v. Colo. State Hosp., 166 Colo. 1 , 441 P.2d 153 (1968).   Exemptions from claim. The general assembly intended that an incompetent's estate be given the benefit of the same exemptions afforded to a normal judgment debtor. State v. Estate of Butler, 30 Colo. App. 246, 491 P.2d 102 (1971).   The exemption provisions of § 13-54-102 are applicable to the assets in the estate of a mental incompetent, and insurance proceeds in such an estate are exempt from an approved claim of the Colorado state hospital. State v. Estate of Butler, 30 Colo. App. 246, 491 P.2d 102 (1971).   There is no statutory compulsion requiring work, labor, or services by medically adjudicated incompetents whose confinement is not for punishment but rather for treatment. In re Estate of Buzzelle v. Colo. State Hosp., 176 Colo. 554 , 491 P.2d 1369 (1971).   This section contains no express language requiring compensation for occupational therapy, nor any language from which an inference necessarily should be drawn that the state should pay a patient for his voluntary services. In re Estate of Buzzelle v. Colo. State Hosp., 176 Colo. 554 , 491 P.2d 1369 (1971).