Scholle v. Ehrichs: Colorado Supreme Court Clarifies Collateral Source Exception

Background

On October 2, 2014, Patricia Scholle underwent surgery to remove an ovarian cyst at St. Anthony Summit Medical Center in Frisco, Colorado. The procedure was performed by Dr. Christine Ehrichs, an obstetrician-gynecologist. During the operation, Scholle’s bowel was injured. Although Dr. Ehrichs repaired the injury, Scholle developed severe postoperative complications. Over the following days, she experienced increasing abdominal pain, infection, and sepsis, which ultimately required additional surgeries. Scholle later alleged that Dr. Ehrichs and St. Anthony Summit Medical Center negligently failed to diagnose and treat her postoperative condition.

Procedural History

In 2016, Scholle filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Ehrichs, her medical practice, and the hospital. Under Colorado’s certificate-of-review statute, § 13-20-602, a plaintiff in a professional negligence case must file a certificate of review within sixty days after service of the complaint, confirming that a qualified expert has reviewed the claim and believes it has merit. Scholle’s counsel failed to file the certificate within the required timeframe. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on that basis.

The district court dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that the sixty-day filing deadline was mandatory and jurisdictional. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no statutory basis to extend or excuse noncompliance with the deadline.

Colorado Supreme Court Review

The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the sixty-day deadline for filing a certificate of review is jurisdictional or procedural and whether a trial court has discretion to accept a late filing.

The Court examined the text and purpose of § 13-20-602, which was enacted to prevent frivolous professional negligence claims by requiring early expert review. The Court noted that the statute does not specify that the sixty-day deadline is jurisdictional or that late filings must automatically result in dismissal. It further observed that jurisdictional deadlines typically appear in statutes limiting the court’s authority to hear a case, not in procedural provisions governing how claims are presented.

Legal Analysis

The Court held that the sixty-day deadline is procedural rather than jurisdictional. It reasoned that treating the deadline as jurisdictional would contradict the statute’s remedial purpose and improperly bar potentially meritorious claims. The Court emphasized that trial courts have discretion to grant extensions for good cause, particularly where dismissal would cause undue prejudice or where the delay was caused by mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Applying this standard, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred by dismissing Scholle’s case with prejudice without considering whether good cause existed to excuse the late filing. The Court clarified that a late certificate may be accepted if the delay does not prejudice the defendant and the plaintiff demonstrates a reasonable justification.

The decision also resolved conflicting interpretations among Colorado appellate courts. Earlier cases had characterized the deadline as mandatory and jurisdictional, while others allowed limited flexibility. The Supreme Court’s ruling established that the deadline operates as a claims-processing rule subject to judicial discretion.

Court’s Ruling

The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the district court to determine whether Scholle had shown good cause for her late certificate filing. The Court instructed lower courts to evaluate future delays under an equitable framework that balances diligence, prejudice, and fairness.

Assistance with Medical Malpractice Matters

If you have suffered harm due to medical negligence or professional error, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with medical malpractice cases. Contact our team to learn how we can help you pursue accountability and compensation for injuries caused by substandard medical care.