Banner Health v. Gresser: Colorado Supreme Court Affirms Exceeding HCAA Damages Cap

Background of the Medical Malpractice Action

Chance and Erin Gresser brought a medical malpractice case against Banner Health, doing business as North Colorado Medical Center, after their daughter, C.G., suffered severe injuries during labor, delivery, and postpartum care. The injuries included permanent neurological damage, developmental delays, a seizure disorder, communication difficulties, physical impairments, and intermediate cerebral palsy. Evidence showed that C.G. would need lifelong medical care and that her life expectancy had been significantly shortened.

A jury found Banner Health negligent and awarded the Gresser family $27,647,274.23 in economic damages. This amount included past medical expenses, extensive projected future medical expenses, and lost future wages. Because Colorado’s Health Care Availability Act (HCAA) ordinarily places a $1 million limit on damages in medical malpractice cases, the Gressers asked the court to exceed the cap. Banner Health asked the court to reduce the award to comply with the statutory limit.

Proceedings in the Trial Court

The trial court reviewed the request to exceed the damages cap by looking at the circumstances surrounding C.G.’s injuries and the evidence presented at trial. It found that the economic damages clearly exceeded the cap and that limiting the award to $1 million would be unfair. The court then examined whether the jury’s calculations were properly supported.

The trial court found that the jury’s award was based on the evidence and was not influenced by passion or prejudice. It concluded that the damages were not excessive and that it would not be appropriate to replace the jury’s judgment with its own. The court entered judgment for the full amount of the award, plus pre- and post-filing interest, for a total of $39,845,196.83. Banner Health appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Review by the Supreme Court of Colorado

The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed whether the lower courts applied the correct legal standards when considering the HCAA’s damages cap and the exception allowing courts to exceed it. The Court explained that under common law, juries are responsible for determining the amount of damages, and courts may adjust a jury’s award only in specific situations, such as when the award is not supported by the evidence or is grossly excessive.

The HCAA changed this structure by imposing a $1 million limit, but it also created a process allowing courts to exceed the cap when the economic damages surpass the limit and applying the cap would be unfair. The statute did not explain how courts should determine the amount of damages once the cap is exceeded. Because of this silence, the Supreme Court relied on the structure of the statute and common-law principles to fill the gap.

The Court concluded that once a trial court determines the cap should be exceeded, it should continue to rely on the jury’s assessment of damages. The legislature had not expressed an intention to replace the jury’s role in determining the amount of damages, so the traditional approach remained in place.

The Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It held that the trial court acted correctly by finding good cause to exceed the cap and by relying on the jury’s damages calculation. Because the jury’s award was supported by the evidence and was not excessive, the trial court properly entered judgment for the full amount.

Assistance With Medical Malpractice Matters

If you’ve experienced medical malpractice, Whitcomb Selinsky PC handles medical malpractice matters. Reach out to our team through our contact page to learn how our team can assist with your claim.