Opinion ID: 3172059
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Courtâs Discovery Ruling

Text: Â¶30Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â If the Hospital had been able to assert comparative negligence, the pre-incident medical records it seeks would likely have been relevant. But, given our holding today, we need not address the trial courtâs discovery ruling preventing the Hospital from obtaining K.W.âs pre-incident mental health records. Â¶31Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â This court will not typically review a trial courtâs pretrial discovery order, unless the relatively rare situation presents itself in which a remedy on appeal would be inadequate. Ortega v. Colo. Permanente Grp., P.C., 265 P.3d 444, 447 (Colo. 2011). We will address a pretrial discovery dispute in an original proceeding only if the ruling âwill have a significant effect on a partyâs ability to litigate the merits of the controversy and the damage to a party could not be cured on appeal.â Kerwin v. Dist. Ct., 649 P.2d 1086, 1088 (Colo. 1982); see also Warden, Â¶ 16, 291 P.3d at 34 (âThis Court exercises its original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 to review whether a trial court abused its discretion in situations where the normal appellate process would prove inadequate.â). That is not the case here. As the trial court noted, the Hospital already has access toÂ documents in its own records that âare directly related to K.W.âs pre-incident mental health,â information that is âclearly relevant to the care needed to be taken with K.W. during his admission to the hospitalâ and thus âwithin the waiver of the privilege.â Given the nature of the claims in this case and the information already possessed by the Hospital, we do not believe that the denial of the Hospitalâs request to access K.W.âs pre-incident mental health records will have a âsignificant effectâ on the Hospitalâs âability to litigate the merits of the controversy.â Kerwin, 649 P.2d at 1088. Â¶32Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Hospitalâs challenge of the discovery order is not an appropriate matter for this court to decide on C.A.R. 21 review, particularly given our holding today eliminating the Hospitalâs comparative negligence defense. Accordingly we need notâ and do notâdecide this issue today.