State’s high court questions role of judges after malpractice trial verdicts.
A Colorado family brought a hospital to court after their newborn daughter was left with lasting medical problems. The parents said a delay in treatment caused the harm. After hearing their case, a jury agreed and gave the family nearly $28 million. Most of that money was meant to cover future medical needs. But state law has a rule that usually limits these kinds of awards to $1 million. There’s a way for judges to lift the limit, but only in special cases. In this one, the trial judge said the injuries were severe enough to set the rule aside.
Now the state’s top court is deciding what should happen next. The law says a judge can lift the cap, but it doesn’t clearly explain how the final amount should be chosen. That part has caused confusion. Some say judges should let the jury’s number stand unless it is way off. Others believe judges should have the power to change the number, whether it’s too high or too low. The case has raised questions about how far a judge’s reach should go once a jury has spoken.
In the original case, the judge looked at the facts and agreed with the jury’s choice. He said the child’s care would cost a lot for many years and that the jury had heard enough to make a sound decision. A panel of appeals judges backed that view. They said a judge doesn’t always have to stick with the jury’s number, but if the judge explains the reasoning and supports it with facts, the amount can stay.
But the hospital didn’t stop there. It asked the Colorado Supreme Court to step in. Their lawyers argued that once a judge lifts the cap, the jury’s number shouldn’t be locked in. They said the law was created to keep medical costs down and protect health care systems from sky-high payouts. They also said judges should always double-check large awards to make sure they’re fair—not just for patients, but also for the hospitals and doctors involved.
Several justices weren’t convinced. One asked what the point of having a jury would be if the judge could redo the decision later. Another said the law doesn’t say the jury’s word disappears after the cap is lifted. A third questioned why the review would only go in one direction—why it would only lower amounts and never raise them if needed.
The family’s lawyer said if lawmakers wanted courts to do a second full review of the money, they should have written that into the law. Since they didn’t, the courts should stick to what the law says and not make up new steps.
During the hearing, it became clear that the court was weighing not just this one case, but the bigger picture. If judges are given wide control over awards, it could affect how future medical lawsuits play out across the state. It could also shift the balance between the power of a jury and the judgment of a single person on the bench.
No final ruling has been made yet. The decision will likely have long-lasting effects, not only for this family but for others in Colorado dealing with harm caused by medical mistakes. The case is still under review, and many are waiting to see how the court will draw the line between fairness and finality.
Join the conversation!