Francis RUDNICKI and Pamela Rudnicki, as parents, guardians and next friends of Alexander Rudnicki, a minor child v. Peter BIANCO, D.O. ( 2021 )

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-06-11">
<div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc">
<link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link>
<div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/901256347" data-vids="901256347" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">501 P.3d 776</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Francis RUDNICKI</span></span> and <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Pamela Rudnicki</span>, as <span class="ldml-role">parents</span>, <span class="ldml-role">guardians</span> and <span class="ldml-role">next friends of Alexander Rudnicki</span>, a <span class="ldml-role">minor child</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioners</span></span>,</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Peter BIANCO</span></span>, <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">D.O.</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court <span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 19SC631</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">December 13, 2021</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">Rehearing Denied January 24, 2022</b></span></p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="279" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="279" data-sentence-id="279" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioners</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Ogborn Mihm, LLP</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Thomas D. Neville</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Clayton E. Wire</span></span>, <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Denver, Colorado, Wahlberg, Woodruff, Nimmo & Sloane, LLP</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">David S. Woodruff</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="454" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="454" data-sentence-id="454" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Messner Reeves LLP</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Kendra N. Beckwith</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="536" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="536" data-sentence-id="536" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amicus Curiae</span> Children's Hospital Colorado: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">McConnell Van Pelt, LLC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Traci L. Van Pelt</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Marjorie Taylor Smith</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="677" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="677" data-sentence-id="677" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amicus Curiae</span> Coloradans Protecting Patient Access: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Kevin J. Kuhn</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Theresa Wardon Benz</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Shawn K. Neal</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="839" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="839" data-sentence-id="839" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amici Curiae</span> Colorado Defense Lawyers Association</span>, Colorado Civil Justice League, and <span class="ldml-entity">American Property Casualty Insurance Association</span>: Lent <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Parker Law LLC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Margrit Lent Parker</span></span>, Firestone, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1050" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="1050" data-sentence-id="1050" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amicus Curiae</span> the <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing</span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Philip J. Weiser</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Alisa Campbell</span></span>, Senior Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, Denver, Colorado</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="1243" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="1243" data-sentence-id="1243" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amicus Curiae</span> Colorado Trial Lawyers Association</span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Leventhal Puga Braley P.C.</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Julia Thompson</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Molly Greenblatt</span></span>, Denver, Colorado, <span class="ldml-entity">The Komyatte Law Firm LLC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">David P. Mason</span></span>, Lakewood, Colorado</span></p></div><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading"><span data-paragraph-id="1448" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-judgepanel"><span data-paragraph-id="1448" data-sentence-id="1448" class="ldml-sentence">En Banc</span></span></span></h2><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="1455" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (GABRIEL)"><span data-paragraph-id="1455" data-sentence-id="1455" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">GABRIEL</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1506" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1506" data-sentence-id="1506" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1506"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> In this medical malpractice action arising from substantial injuries that an infant suffered during his birth, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> must determine who may recover damages for the medical expenses that a child incurs prior to turning eighteen.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1506" data-sentence-id="1734" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted certiorari to decide <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> whether to adhere to a common law rule under which only a minor <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiff</span>'s parents may recover tort damages for medical expenses incurred by their unemancipated minor child and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> if <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> adhere to that rule, whether the <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"HCPF"</span>)</span> may properly assert, against any amounts recovered by the child, a lien to recoup the pre-majority medical expenses that HCPF <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_2196" data-val="778"></span> paid on the child's behalf, such that an exception to the common law rule applies.<a href="#note-fr1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1">1</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="2280" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2280" data-sentence-id="2280" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2280"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> now conclude that the traditional rationales for the common law rule no longer apply and that the realities of today's health care economy compel <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to abandon that rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2280" data-sentence-id="2457" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that in <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> involving an unemancipated minor child, either the child or their parents may recover the child's pre-majority medical expenses, but double recovery is not permitted <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are intentionally using the singular <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">they</span>"</span> in this opinion)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2280" data-sentence-id="2728" class="ldml-sentence">In light of this determination, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not decide whether an exception to the common law rule applies in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2844" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2844" data-sentence-id="2844" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2844"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore reverse the judgment of the division below.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="I" data-ordinal_start="1" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-id="heading_2903" data-ordinal_end="1" data-types="background" id="heading_2903"><span data-paragraph-id="2903" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="2903" data-sentence-id="2903" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2903" data-sentence-id="2906" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="2934" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2934" data-sentence-id="2934" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2934"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> On <span class="ldml-entity">October 5, 2005</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Alexander Rudnicki</span> suffered serious injuries during his birth when OB-GYN <span class="ldml-entity">Peter Bianco</span>, D.O., negligently performed an operative vaginal delivery using a vacuum extractor to assist in that delivery.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2934" data-sentence-id="3156" class="ldml-sentence">At birth, Alexander had severe scalp abrasions and bruising on his skull, and medical staff observed him to be floppy, quiet, and unresponsive, with diminished function and depressed Apgar scores.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2934" data-sentence-id="3353" class="ldml-sentence">Alexander was immediately intubated and required intensive medical treatment, which revealed that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had suffered injuries to his brain as a result of the trauma to his scalp and skull caused by the vacuum extraction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2934" data-sentence-id="3571" class="ldml-sentence">As a result of his injuries, Alexander has required ongoing physical, occupational, and speech therapy; <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> is intellectually disabled and enrolled in special education at school; and <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> is not likely to be able to live independently in the future.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3818" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="3818" data-sentence-id="3818" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3818"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity">2014</span>, Alexander's parents, Francis and <span class="ldml-entity">Pamela Rudnicki</span>, in both their individual capacities and as parents, guardians, and next friends of their son, filed a complaint against Dr. Bianco and the hospital where Alexander was born, alleging, among other things, professional negligence by Dr. Bianco.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3818" data-sentence-id="4123" class="ldml-sentence">Dr. Bianco moved to dismiss, asserting, in pertinent part, that Alexander's parents did not bring their individual claims against him within the applicable two-year <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations set forth in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4123"><span class="ldml-cite">section 13-80-102.5</span></a></span>, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2021</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3818" data-sentence-id="4360" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> agreed and dismissed Francis and <span class="ldml-entity">Pamela Rudnicki</span>'s individual claims, and <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> proceeded to trial with Alexander as the sole <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiff</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3818" data-sentence-id="4519" class="ldml-sentence">A jury ultimately found that Dr. Bianco had acted negligently and awarded Alexander damages totaling $4 million, including, among other things, $325,000 for past medical expenses and $110,000 for future medical expenses until Alexander reaches the age of twenty-two.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4785" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4785" data-sentence-id="4785" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4785"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span> Dr. Bianco subsequently filed a <span class="ldml-entity">post-trial motion to reduce</span> this verdict.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4785" data-sentence-id="4862" class="ldml-sentence">In his motion, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> argued, as pertinent here, that under Colorado common law, only Alexander's parents could recover Alexander's pre-majority medical expenses and, therefore, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> was required to deduct from the verdict the medical expenses incurred prior to Alexander's eighteenth birthday.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5157" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5157" data-sentence-id="5157" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5157"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> ultimately agreed with Dr. Bianco and vacated the entirety of the jury's $325,000 award for past medical expenses, as well as sixty percent of the jury's $110,000 award for future medical expenses until Alexander reached the age of twenty-two <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., $66,000, representing the expenses incurred from the date of the verdict, when Alexander was approximately twelve years old, until <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> would reach the age of eighteen; Dr. Bianco did not contest the portion of the award corresponding to medical expenses that Alexander would incur between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5157" data-sentence-id="5755" class="ldml-sentence">In so ruling, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> relied on <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5755"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Pressey v. Children's Hospital Colorado</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2017 COA 28</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5755"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 26</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5755"><span class="ldml-cite">488 P.3d 151, 159</span></a></span>, in which a division of our <span class="ldml-entity">court of appeals</span> had upheld the common law rule barring minors from recovering their pre-majority medical expenses.</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_6020" data-val="779"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6020" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6020" data-sentence-id="6021" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> thus concluded that the claim for pre-majority medical expenses belonged solely to Alexander's parents, but their claim for such expenses had been dismissed as time-barred.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6212" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6212" data-sentence-id="6212" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6212"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span> Alexander appealed, arguing that applying the common law rule in the modern health care economy violates public policy and, therefore, the rule should be abandoned in favor of a rule allowing minor <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiffs</span>, as co-owners of their claim for pre-majority medical expenses, to recover those expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6212" data-sentence-id="6515" class="ldml-sentence">Alternatively, Alexander asserted that even if the common law rule applied, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> fell within an exception to that rule that permits minors to seek pre-majority medical expenses when <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the minor child has paid or agreed to pay the expenses."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6212" data-sentence-id="6753" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6753"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6753"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 28</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6753"><span class="ldml-cite">488 P.3d at 159</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890584345" data-vids="890584345" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6753"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Betz v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Agency of Kan., Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">269 Kan. 554</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">8 P.3d 756, 760</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Kan.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2000</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6212" data-sentence-id="6888" class="ldml-sentence">On this point, Alexander reasoned that HCPF, <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> administrator of Medicaid, could seek reimbursement for his pre-majority medical <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> by placing a lien on <i class="ldml-italics">any</i> judgment that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had obtained against a negligent third-<span class="ldml-entity">party</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6212" data-sentence-id="7118" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, Alexander asserted that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was personally liable for the expenses and therefore fell within the above-noted exception to the common law rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6212" data-sentence-id="7266" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Alexander further contended that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> fell within the exception because Anthem was also pursuing reimbursement for the pre-majority medical <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span> that it had paid, but Alexander did not pursue this argument before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>.)</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7483" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="7483" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7483"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> In a unanimous, unpublished decision, a division of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> affirmed <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s reduction of the damages award.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="7621" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7483" data-refglobal="case:rudnickivbianco,no18ca0215"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Rudnicki v. Bianco</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 18CA0215</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7483"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 2</span></a></span></span>, 50, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:2019wl2385683june6,2019"><span class="ldml-cite">2019 WL 2385683</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">June 6, 2019</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="7697" class="ldml-sentence">Although the division acknowledged what it perceived to be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the national trend toward abandonment of the common law rule and allowing both a minor and the minor's parents to recover the minor's pre-majority medical expenses,"</span> it felt compelled to follow precedent from <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> that appeared to have adhered to that rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="8021" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8021" data-refglobal="case:2019wl2385683june6,2019"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8021"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 21</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="8034" class="ldml-sentence">The division also rejected Alexander's alternative argument that, even were the common law rule to apply, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> is entitled to recover pre-majority medical expenses under the above-described exception to that rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="8246" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8246" data-refglobal="case:2019wl2385683june6,2019"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8246"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 27-43</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="8263" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, as pertinent here, the division disagreed with Alexander's premise that HCPF could recover for the pre-majority medical expenses that it had advanced by imposing a lien against the judgment that Alexander had obtained.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="8496" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8263" data-refglobal="case:2019wl2385683june6,2019"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 41-43</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="8513" class="ldml-sentence">The division reasoned that for HCPF to have a statutory lien against Alexander's recovery, it had to have paid for medical expenses for which a third-<span class="ldml-entity">party</span> was liable, but <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> had vacated the jury award for Alexander's pre-majority medical expenses <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(and, thus, presumably, no third-<span class="ldml-entity">party</span> was liable for those expenses)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="8845" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8513" data-refglobal="case:2019wl2385683june6,2019"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 40-41</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="8862" class="ldml-sentence">The division further opined that HCPF's <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"lien may attach to damages awarded for Alexander's future, post-majority medical expenses, but only if Alexander intends to stay on Medicaid,"</span> and nothing in the record indicated any such intent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="9099" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8862" data-refglobal="case:2019wl2385683june6,2019"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 42-43</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="9116" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, the division concluded that Alexander was not liable to HCPF for reimbursement of the pre-majority medical expenses that HCPF had advanced, and, therefore, the exception to the common law rule did not apply.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7483" data-sentence-id="9330" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9116" data-refglobal="case:2019wl2385683june6,2019"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 43</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9342" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9342" data-sentence-id="9342" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9342"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span> Alexander petitioned <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> for certiorari review, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted his petition.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="II" data-ordinal_start="2" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="II. Analysis" data-content-heading-label="II. Analysis" data-id="heading_9429" data-ordinal_end="2" data-types="analysis" id="heading_9429"><span data-paragraph-id="9429" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="9429" data-sentence-id="9429" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9429" data-sentence-id="9433" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="9441" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9441" data-sentence-id="9441" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9441"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin by setting forth the law guiding our review, including the applicable standard of review and the principles governing the recovery of an injured minor's damages.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9441" data-sentence-id="9616" class="ldml-sentence">After then acknowledging the principles of stare decisis, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> consider the theoretical underpinnings of the common law rule and conclude that further adherence to that rule is no longer justified and indeed undermines Colorado's public policy goals.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="A" data-ordinal_start="1" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="A. Applicable Law" data-content-heading-label="A. Applicable Law" data-id="heading_9864" data-ordinal_end="1" data-types="backgroundlaw" id="heading_9864"><span data-paragraph-id="9864" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="9864" data-sentence-id="9864" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9864" data-sentence-id="9867" class="ldml-sentence">Applicable Law</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="9881" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9881" data-sentence-id="9881" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9881"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> Whether the common law rule should continue to apply and, therefore, whether injured, unemancipated minors can recover their pre-majority medical expenses are questions of law that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review de novo.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9881" data-sentence-id="10085" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9881" data-refglobal="case:statevmedved,2019co1"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">State v. Medved</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2019 CO 1</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9881"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 13</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894589801" data-vids="894589801" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_10141"><span class="ldml-cite">433 P.3d 33, 36</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review questions of law de novo</span>)</span></span>.<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_10189" data-val="780"></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10189" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10189" data-sentence-id="10190" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10190"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> The common law rule provides that only the parents of an unemancipated minor child —and not the child —have the right to recover the child's pre-majority medical expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10189" data-sentence-id="10366" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10190"><span class="ldml-refname">Pressey</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10190"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 26</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">488 P.3d at 159</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_10464"><span class="ldml-refname">Restatement <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Second)</span> of Torts</span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 703</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1977</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">providing that a tortfeasor who is liable to a minor child for bodily harm is subject to liability to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the parent who is under a legal duty to furnish medical treatment for any expenses reasonably incurred or likely to be incurred for the treatment during the child's minority"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10189" data-sentence-id="10744" class="ldml-sentence">The minor may, however, recover expenses that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> actually incur during their minority and expenses for their pain and suffering, post-majority medical expenses, and impairment of future earning capacity.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10189" data-sentence-id="10950" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10744"><span class="ldml-refname">Pressey</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10744"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 26</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">488 P.3d at 159</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:stateexrelpackardvperry,221wva526,532,655se2d5482007"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">State ex rel. Packard v. Perry</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">221 W.Va. 526</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">655 S.E.2d 548, 554</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2007</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><p data-paragraph-id="11069" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="11069" data-sentence-id="11069" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11069"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span> Jurisdictions that follow the common law rule typically recognize four exceptions to that rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11069" data-sentence-id="11169" class="ldml-sentence">These exceptions allow a minor to recover when</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_11215" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="11215" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> the minor child has paid or agreed to pay the expenses; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> the minor child is legally responsible for payment <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(emancipation, death or incompetency of the parents)</span>; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> ... the parents waive or assign their right to recovery in favor of the minor; or <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span> ... recovery of expenses is permitted by <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="11523" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11523" data-sentence-id="11524" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Pressey</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 28</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">488 P.3d at 159</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890584345" data-vids="890584345" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Betz</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">8 P.3d at 760</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11586" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="11586" data-sentence-id="11586" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11586"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> To date, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> appears to have subscribed, at least implicitly, to the foregoing principles.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11586" data-sentence-id="11688" class="ldml-sentence">For example, in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893707664" data-vids="893707664" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11688"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Pawnee Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Powell</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">76 Colo. 1</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">227 P. 836, 839</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1924</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> concluded that because <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a <span class="ldml-entity">father</span> is entitled to the earnings of his <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[unemancipated]</span> son during minority,"</span> the son could not recover for possible future earnings during the remaining period of his minority.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11586" data-sentence-id="11989" class="ldml-sentence">Similarly, in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887831723" data-vids="887831723" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11989"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wales v. Howard</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">164 Colo. 167</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">433 P.2d 493, 496</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1967</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> concluded that a minor child could not recover for past medical expenses incurred by him but billed to his <span class="ldml-entity">father</span> absent evidence that <span class="ldml-entity">the father</span> had relinquished this claim to him.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11586" data-sentence-id="12246" class="ldml-sentence">And in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12246"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Elgin v. Bartlett</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">994 P.2d 411, 416 & n.3</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> acknowledged that the parents of an injured minor have derivative claims for <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"medical and other expenses incurred because of the child's injuries, loss of household and similar services that the injured child would have rendered during his or her minority, and loss of the child's earning capacity during minority."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11586" data-sentence-id="12629" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> further clarified that these claims <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"are separate from the claims of the injured"</span> child.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11586" data-sentence-id="12721" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12629"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 416</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12732" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="12732" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12732"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> The foregoing principles have obvious implications for the applicable <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="12830" class="ldml-sentence">Pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12830"><span class="ldml-cite">section 13-80-102.5<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span>, an action for negligence against a health care professional generally must be brought within two years after the date that such action accrues.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="13010" class="ldml-sentence">Such an action accrues <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"on the date both the injury and its cause are known or should have been known by the exercise of reasonable diligence."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="13154" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13010"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 13-80-108<span class="ldml-headnoteanchor"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="13185" class="ldml-sentence">This limitations period is tolled, however, with regard to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span> person otherwise under disability as defined in <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13185"><span class="ldml-cite">section 13-81-101</span></a></span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2021</span>)</span> ]</span></span>, in which case the action may be maintained within the time period as provided in <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13185"><span class="ldml-cite">section 13-81-103</span></a></span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2021</span>)</span>]</span></span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="13452" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13185"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 13-80-102.5<span class="ldml-headnoteanchor"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span></span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(d)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(II)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="13477" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13477"><span class="ldml-cite">Section 13-81-101<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span></span></a></span> defines <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"person under disability"</span> as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"any person who is a minor under eighteen years of age, a mental incompetent, or a person under other legal disability and who does not have a legal guardian."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="13695" class="ldml-sentence">And <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have construed <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13695"><span class="ldml-cite">section 13-81-103<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span></a></span> to protect persons like Alexander, who is a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"person under disability"</span> and for whom <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> has not appointed a legal representative.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="13876" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13695"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Elgin</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">994 P.2d at 414</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="13905" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have concluded that, for purposes of an unemancipated minor's negligence claim against a health care professional, <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations set forth in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13905"><span class="ldml-cite">section 13-80-102.5<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"begins to run when the minor reaches the age of eighteen or when, if it does, <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> appoints a legal representative for the minor."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="14227" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13905"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Elgin</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">994 P.2d at 414</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14250" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="14250" data-sentence-id="14250" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14250"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> As the foregoing makes clear, although the applicable <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations is tolled with respect to a minor child's negligence claim against a health care professional, it is not tolled with respect to the parents' derivative claim for the child's pre-majority medical expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14250" data-sentence-id="14536" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14250"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 416</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14250" data-sentence-id="14548" class="ldml-sentence">As a result, under the common law rule, unless the parents of an injured minor either relinquish their claim <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_14657" data-val="781"></span> for pre-majority medical expenses to the minor or assert that claim within the two-year <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations, a tortfeasor will escape responsibility for some —and perhaps a substantial portion—of the damages that the tortfeasor caused the child.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14250" data-sentence-id="14907" class="ldml-sentence">And this is so even though the child did nothing to waive any right to recover such damages and even though the child might have had until their twentieth birthday to bring such a claim had the claim belonged to them.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="B" data-ordinal_start="2" data-value="B. Principles of Stare Decisis" data-content-heading-label="B. Principles of Stare Decisis" data-id="heading_15124" data-ordinal_end="2" id="heading_15124"><span data-paragraph-id="15124" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="15124" data-sentence-id="15124" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15124" data-sentence-id="15127" class="ldml-sentence">Principles of Stare Decisis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="15154" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="15154" data-sentence-id="15155" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15155"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> Any discussion of whether to adhere to the common law rule must begin with the principles of stare decisis.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15154" data-sentence-id="15267" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Stare decisis is a judge-made doctrine that requires <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> to follow preexisting rules of law."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15154" data-sentence-id="15365" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15267" data-refglobal="case:lovevklosky,2018co20"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Love v. Klosky</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2018 CO 20</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15267"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 14</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886790822" data-vids="886790822" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">413 P.3d 1267, 1270</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15154" data-sentence-id="15420" class="ldml-sentence">Adhering to principles of stare decisis is generally the preferred course because it promotes predictability in the law, reliance on judicial precedent, and the integrity of the judicial process.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15154" data-sentence-id="15616" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886790822" data-vids="886790822" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15420"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15154" data-sentence-id="15620" class="ldml-sentence">Nonetheless, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have recognized that <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> may depart from a prior ruling when sound reasons exist for doing so.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15154" data-sentence-id="15734" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886790822" data-vids="886790822" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15734"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15734"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 15</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886790822" data-vids="886790822" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15734"><span class="ldml-cite">413 P.3d at 1270</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15154" data-sentence-id="15765" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have said that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[w]</span>e will depart from our existing law only if <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are clearly convinced that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changing conditions and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> more good than harm will come from departing from precedent."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15154" data-sentence-id="16036" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886790822" data-vids="886790822" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15765"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15154" data-sentence-id="16040" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> turn next to the theoretical underpinnings of the common law rule and consider whether the conditions that originally justified that rule have changed and whether more good than harm would come from abandoning the rule.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="C" data-ordinal_start="3" data-value="C. Traditional Rationales for the Common Law Rule" data-content-heading-label="C. Traditional Rationales for the Common Law Rule" data-id="heading_16275" data-ordinal_end="3" id="heading_16275"><span data-paragraph-id="16275" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="16275" data-sentence-id="16275" class="ldml-sentence">C.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16275" data-sentence-id="16278" class="ldml-sentence">Traditional Rationales for the Common Law Rule</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="16324" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="16324" data-sentence-id="16325" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16325"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span> The principle under which certain relationships give rise to derivative actions whereby one person can recover for injuries sustained by another traces its origins to early Roman law, in which the <i class="ldml-italics">paterfamilias,</i> as head of the household of relatives, dependents, and enslaved <span class="ldml-entity">people</span>, was the person entitled to bring an action for violence committed against or insults to his wife, children, slaves, or other members of his household.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16324" data-sentence-id="16764" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16325"><span class="ldml-refname">Francis Bowes Sayre, <i class="ldml-italics">Inducing Breach of Contract</i></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">36 Harv. L. Rev. 663, 663</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1923</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16324" data-sentence-id="16852" class="ldml-sentence">The underlying premise for this rule was that an insult to a member of the household was a form of insult to the <i class="ldml-italics">paterfamilias</i> himself.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16324" data-sentence-id="16988" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16988"><span class="ldml-cite">Id.</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> see also</i> <span class="ldml-entity">Evelyn Atkinson</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">Out of the Household: Master-Servant Relations and Employer Liability Law,</i> 25 Yale J.L. & Human.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16324" data-sentence-id="17116" class="ldml-sentence">205, 208 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Summer <span class="ldml-entity">2013</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-relatingauthority">observing</span> that the master-servant, husband-wife, and parent-child relationships fell within the broader notion of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"household government,"</span> in which the master of the household exercised domestic rule over his dependents)</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="17360" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="17360" data-sentence-id="17360" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17360"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> These principles formed the underpinnings in this country of the form of action for trespass <i class="ldml-italics">per quod servitium amisit.</i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="17360" data-sentence-id="17484" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885036708" data-vids="885036708" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17360"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Maxson v. Del., L. & W. R. Co</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">112 N.Y. 559</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">20 N.E. 544, 544-45</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1889</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> <i class="ldml-italics">Per quod servitium amisit,</i> Black's Law Dictionary <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">11th ed. 2019</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(defining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<i class="ldml-italics">per quod servitium amisit"</i></span> to mean <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[w]</span>hereby <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> lost the services <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(of his servant)</span>"</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17360" data-sentence-id="17727" class="ldml-sentence">Such an action reflected the fact that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he law gives to the husband, to the parent, and to the master a right of action for any injury to the wife, minor child, or servant, when caused by the actionable acts of another, <i class="ldml-italics">per quod servitum</i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[sic]</span> <i class="ldml-italics">amisit."</i></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="17360" data-sentence-id="17983" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885036708" data-vids="885036708" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17727"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Maxson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">20 N.E. at 544-45</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886336932" data-vids="886336932" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_18117,sentence_17727"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Estate of DeSela v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">226 Ariz. 387</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">249 P.3d 767, 769</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2011</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">describing how prior <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> had <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"treated the parent-child relationship in economic terms, much like the relation between master and servant"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18258" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="18258" data-sentence-id="18258" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18258"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21</span></a></span> This cause of action thus amounted to a claim for infringement of a man's property right.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18258" data-sentence-id="18352" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888608242" data-vids="888608242" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18258"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ireland Elec. Corp. v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">166 Ga.App. 150</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">303 S.E.2d 497, 498</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1983</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18258" data-sentence-id="18452" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, as the <span class="ldml-entity">Vermont Supreme Court</span> explained:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_18504" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="18504" class="ldml-sentence">A master can maintain an action for the beating of his servant per quod servitium amisit.</span> <span data-sentence-id="18594" class="ldml-sentence">The loss of service is the cause of action. ...</span> <span data-sentence-id="18642" class="ldml-sentence">This doctrine also applies to actions brought by a parent for injuries to his child, when brought for loss of the child's services.</span> <span data-sentence-id="18774" class="ldml-sentence">In such <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> the right of action is founded on the relation of master and servant, and not on that of parent and child ....<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_18898" data-val="782"></span></span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="18898" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="18898" data-sentence-id="18899" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889565100" data-vids="889565100" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Trow v. Thomas</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">70 Vt. 580</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">41 A. 652, 654</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1898</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">citation omitted</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18969" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="18969" data-sentence-id="18969" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18969"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22</span></a></span> Societal attitudes have obviously shifted away from treating children and other household members as chattel, but a number of jurisdictions have nonetheless retained the common law rule, now primarily on the theories that it <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> allows <span class="ldml-entity">the party</span> who actually suffered the damages <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(namely, the parents, who have a legal obligation to support their children)</span> to recover the loss caused by a tortfeasor and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> prevents double recoveries.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18969" data-sentence-id="19409" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18969" data-refglobal="case:stateexrelpackardvperry,221wva526,532,655se2d5482007"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Packard</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">655 S.E.2d at 555</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/884784656" data-vids="884784656" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_19515,sentence_18969"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Sox v. United States</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">187 F. Supp. 465, 469</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">E.D.S.C.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1960</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The underlying reason for <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the common law rule]</span> is to prevent double recoveries.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">It is not to excuse liability."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886336932" data-vids="886336932" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_19656,sentence_18969"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">DeSela</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">249 P.3d at 769</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that avoiding double recoveries was a rationale underpinning the common law rule</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18969"><span class="ldml-cite">67A C.J.S.</span></a></span></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_19796"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Parent and Child</i></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 331, at 414</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2002</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The parental right to recover expenses when a child is injured stems from the parents' legal obligation to support a child."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18969" data-sentence-id="19924" class="ldml-sentence">The question thus becomes whether circumstances have changed such that adherence to the common law rule remains necessary to achieve the modern objectives of that rule.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="20092" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="20092" data-sentence-id="20092" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20092"><span class="ldml-cite">¶23</span></a></span> As it exists today, the common law rule appears to be predicated on a presumption that parents alone pay for the health care expenses of their children and, accordingly, are the real <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> in interest regarding medical expenditures related to tortious conduct causing injury to their children.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20092" data-sentence-id="20392" class="ldml-sentence">This presumption, however, reflects a time when parents had no choice but to pay the costs of their child's care out of pocket, and it ignores the advent of private health insurance plans in the <span class="ldml-entity">1930</span>s, the creation of the public Medicare and Medicaid programs in <span class="ldml-entity">1965</span>, and the passage of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20392"><span class="ldml-cite">Affordable Care Act</span></a></span> in <span class="ldml-entity">2010</span>, all of which have dramatically altered how families pay for medical care.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20092" data-sentence-id="20787" class="ldml-sentence">Today, subject to certain exceptions, federal law requires parents to insure their children, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/943658329" data-vids="943658329" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20787"><span class="ldml-cite">26 U.S.C. § 5000A<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span>, and over ninety-five percent of Colorado children have health insurance coverage, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Colo. Health</span> <span class="ldml-cite">Inst., 2021</span></a></span></span> Colorado Health Access Survey: Health Insurance, Ages 0-18, https://www.coloradohealthinstitute.org/sites/default/files/file_attachments/Health%20Insurance%20Workbook%202021.xlsx <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/6UZM-8R9X]</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21221" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="21221" data-sentence-id="21221" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21221"><span class="ldml-cite">¶24</span></a></span> In addition, when children are insured, their parents are not solely responsible for paying their medical expenses, and sometimes the parents have no such obligation at all.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21221" data-sentence-id="21399" class="ldml-sentence">For example, when Medicaid is a child's health insurer, it generally covers the full costs of primary, specialty, mental health, dental, and emergency care.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21221" data-sentence-id="21556" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> Health First Colo., Health First Colorado Benefits & Services, https://www.healthfirstcolorado.com/benefits-services/ <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/EGJ5-BUZP]</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21707" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="21707" data-sentence-id="21707" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21707"><span class="ldml-cite">¶25</span></a></span> And although <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> acknowledge that parents of privately-insured minors may be expected to contribute to a child's care in the form of premiums, co-pays, co-insurance, and deductibles, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> also recognize that, in many <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>, the costs of insurance are subsidized by a parent's employer or the government.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21707" data-sentence-id="22012" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See Explaining Health Care Reform: Questions About Health Insurance Subsidies,</i> Kaiser Family Found. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">Oct. 29, 2021</span>)</span>, https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/explaining-health-care-reform-questions-about-health-insurance-subsidies/ <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/46DM-UWR9]</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="22278" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="22278" data-sentence-id="22278" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22278"><span class="ldml-cite">¶26</span></a></span> In this age of widespread health insurance, particularly for children, then, a rule that treats parents as the sole interested <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> with regard to a child's medical expenses is no longer in sync with the realities of the health care economy.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22278" data-sentence-id="22527" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> perceive no reason why the common law rule is any more adept at shielding <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> from double recovery than is a rule that allows both an injured child and their parents to recover but expressly bars double recoveries.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="22762" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="22762" data-sentence-id="22762" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22762"><span class="ldml-cite">¶27</span></a></span> Recognizing these realities, the trend across the United States has been to renounce <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(or at least substantially retreat from)</span> the common law rule, so as to allow children to recover their pre-majority medical expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22762" data-sentence-id="22985" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, at least eighteen states now allow children to recover pre-majority medical expenses, even if their parents do not waive or file a claim for these damages within <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations, and eight of these states recognize that a claim for pre-majority medical expenses belongs to both <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_23280" data-val="783"></span> the injured children and their parents.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22762" data-sentence-id="23321" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886336932" data-vids="886336932" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22985"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">DeSela</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">249 P.3d at 770</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22985" data-refglobal="case:whitevmorenovalleyunifiedschooldistricte000576226calrptr742,181calapp3d1024,32edlawrep691may30,1986"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">White v. Moreno Valley Unified Sch. Dist.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">181 Cal.App.3d 1024</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">226 Cal. Rptr. 742, 745-46</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1986</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895316646" data-vids="895316646" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22985"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Scott Cnty. Sch. Dist. 1 v. Asher</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">263 Ind. 47</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">324 N.E.2d 496, 499</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1975</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/899859708" data-vids="899859708" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22985"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Boley v. Knowles</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">905 S.W.2d 86, 90</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Mo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22985" data-refglobal="case:lopezvsouthwestcommunityhealthservicesno11543833p2d1183,114nm2,114nm4april2,1992"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Lopez v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">114 N.M. 2</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">833 P.2d 1183, 1192</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Ct. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1992</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889108927" data-vids="889108927" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22985"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Czimmer v. Janssen Pharms., Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">122 A.3d 1043, 1064</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Pa. Super. Ct.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2015</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895199471" data-vids="895199471" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22985"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ho-Rath v. R.I. Hosp</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">115 A.3d 938, 950</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">R.I.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2015</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22985" data-refglobal="case:stateexrelpackardvperry,221wva526,532,655se2d5482007"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Packard</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">655 S.E.2d at 561</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23828" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="23828" data-sentence-id="23828" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23828"><span class="ldml-cite">¶28</span></a></span> Six of the eighteen states toll <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations on a parent's claim during the child's minority.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23828" data-sentence-id="23940" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887407417" data-vids="887407417" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23828"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Carter v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">838 F. Supp. 957, 962</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">D.N.J.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1993</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886793108" data-vids="886793108" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23828"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dewey v. Zack</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">272 Ill.App.3d 742</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">209 Ill.Dec. 465</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">651 N.E.2d 643, 648</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890466992" data-vids="890466992" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23828"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Matranga v. W. End Tile Co.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">357 Mass. 194</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">257 N.E.2d 433, 435</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1970</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23828" data-refglobal="case:fehrenbachvomalleyno2005-2283,no2005-2301862ne2d489,113ohiost3d18,2007-ohio-971decidedmarch21,2007"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Fehrenbach v. O'Malley</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">113 Ohio St.3d 18</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2007 -Ohio- 971</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">862 N.E.2d 489, 493</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/945170225" data-vids="945170225" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23828"><span class="ldml-cite">Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.160<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2019</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23828" data-refglobal="case:korthvamericanfamilyinsurancecompanyno82-1030340nw2d494,115wis2d326decidednov30,1983"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Korth v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">115 Wis.2d 326</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">340 N.W.2d 494, 497</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1983</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="24378" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="24378" data-sentence-id="24378" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24378"><span class="ldml-cite">¶29</span></a></span> And four states appear to treat a parent's failure to bring a claim for pre-majority medical expenses within <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations as a relinquishment or waiver of that claim, allowing the child to recover at that point.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24378" data-sentence-id="24608" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24378" data-refglobal="case:blandvabbottlaboratories,inc,no311-cv-430-h,2012wl524473,at3wdkyfeb16,2012"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Bland v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 3:11-CV-430-H</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2012 WL 524473, at *3</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">W.D. Ky.</span> <span class="ldml-date">Feb. 16, 2012</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888746420" data-vids="888746420" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24378"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Villa v. Roberts</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">80 F. Supp. 2d 1229, 1233-34</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">D. Kan.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2000</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24378" data-refglobal="case:jeffreyandjoannemyer,hwvthomasedyer,md,lukema,md,wilmingtonmedicalcenter,katherinelesterly,md,nsalam,md,maryellenbrown,rn,apendrachi,rn643a2d1382decideddec22,1993"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Myer v. Dyer</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">643 A.2d 1382, 1387</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Del. Super. Ct.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1993</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/898562124" data-vids="898562124" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24378"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Taft v. Jumbo Foods, Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">155 Idaho 511</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">314 P.3d 193, 202</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2013</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="24914" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="24914" data-sentence-id="24914" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24914"><span class="ldml-cite">¶30</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree with the many states that have concluded that the above-described and now-outdated rationales for the common law rule no longer support adherence to that rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24914" data-sentence-id="25087" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> thus turn to the question of whether more good than harm would result from abandoning the rule, which necessarily requires <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to consider the public policy rationales advanced by both sides here.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="D" data-ordinal_start="4" data-value="D. Public Policy Considerations" data-content-heading-label="D. Public Policy Considerations" data-id="heading_25285" data-ordinal_end="4" id="heading_25285"><span data-paragraph-id="25285" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="25285" data-sentence-id="25285" class="ldml-sentence">D.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25285" data-sentence-id="25288" class="ldml-sentence">Public Policy Considerations</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="25316" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="25316" data-sentence-id="25317" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25317"><span class="ldml-cite">¶31</span></a></span> Dr. Bianco and his amici advance a number of public policy arguments to justify retaining the common law rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25316" data-sentence-id="25432" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> are unpersuaded by any of these arguments.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="25477" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="25477" data-sentence-id="25477" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25477"><span class="ldml-cite">¶32</span></a></span> First, Dr. Bianco and his amici assert that the common law rule promotes parental responsibility because <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"parents are more likely to incur the costs of the necessary medical care for an injured child if those costs may be recovered from the person who caused the injury."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25477" data-sentence-id="25753" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> do not subscribe to such a cynical view, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> decline to assume that parents will deny necessary treatment to an injured child based on the nuances of tort law, particularly given that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25753"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-6-401</span></a></span>, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2021</span>)</span>, criminalizes parents' failure to provide their children with proper medical care.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="26057" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="26057" data-sentence-id="26057" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26057"><span class="ldml-cite">¶33</span></a></span> Second, Dr. Bianco and his amici assert that abandoning the common law rule would otherwise be detrimental to children's interests, although <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> do not make clear why this is so, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> perceive the opposite effect.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26057" data-sentence-id="26278" class="ldml-sentence">When a child is injured, particularly at birth, the full nature and extent of the child's injuries may not be known for many years.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26057" data-sentence-id="26410" class="ldml-sentence">If a child begins suffering complications <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(or suffers additional complications)</span> after the limitations period for the parents' claim has expired, then the common law rule would preclude any member of the family from recovering for such losses <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(or additional losses)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26057" data-sentence-id="26676" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> cannot see how a rule that bars a child or their parents from eventually recovering unforeseen <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(and presently unforeseeable)</span> medical expenditures serves that child's best interests.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26057" data-sentence-id="26861" class="ldml-sentence">Nor do <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> perceive how the application of the common law in <span class="ldml-entity">a case</span> like this one, which would result in a substantial diminution of the damages that a child may recover for their injuries through no fault of the child's, somehow benefits the child.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="27109" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="27109" data-sentence-id="27109" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27109"><span class="ldml-cite">¶34</span></a></span> Third, Dr. Bianco and his amici posit that adherence to the common law rule would advance the interests of <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> in general.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27109" data-sentence-id="27242" class="ldml-sentence">In this regard, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> acknowledge Dr. Bianco's concern that abandoning the rule creates opportunities for <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> to litigate their disputes long after an injury occurs, often when memories have faded and some witnesses may be unavailable or difficult to locate.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27109" data-sentence-id="27502" class="ldml-sentence">These evidentiary issues, however, already arise under the common law rule and our <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_27585" data-val="784"></span> current <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> of limitation, which, as noted above, can allow injured children to recover certain expenses until <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are twenty years old.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27109" data-sentence-id="27729" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_27763,sentence_27502"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 13-80-102.5<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(d)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(II)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">providing that a negligence action against a health care professional generally must be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues but tolling that provision for persons otherwise under disability</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_27994,sentence_27502"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 13-81-101<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">defining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"person under disability"</span> to include <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a minor under eighteen years of age"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_28114,sentence_27502"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Elgin</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">994 P.2d at 414</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding that <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations set forth in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27502"><span class="ldml-cite">section 13-80-102.5<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"begins to run when the minor reaches the age of eighteen or when, if it does, <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> appoints a legal representative for the minor"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27502"><span class="ldml-refname">Pressey</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27502"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 26</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_28361"><span class="ldml-cite">488 P.3d at 159</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that, in Colorado, a minor <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"may recover expenses the minor actually incurs during minority and for pain and suffering and post-majority impairment of future earning capacity"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="28544" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="28544" data-sentence-id="28544" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28544"><span class="ldml-cite">¶35</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> do not perceive how adding one category of damages to the existing types of losses for which a minor may recover, potentially years down the road, significantly alters the existing legal landscape in Colorado.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28544" data-sentence-id="28761" class="ldml-sentence">And considering that at least eighteen states allow a child or their parents to recover pre-majority medical expenses beyond the limitations period, without apparent difficulty or untoward effects, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not portend the same panoply of horribles — including hikes in malpractice insurance premiums and undue burdens on hospitals — that Dr. Bianco and his amici foresee.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="29130" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="29130" data-sentence-id="29130" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29130"><span class="ldml-cite">¶36</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> likewise are unpersuaded by the assertions that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> Alexander's parents, and not Alexander, have incurred the pre-majority medical expenses at issue here; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> by abandoning the common law rule, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have overstepped our proper role and have made a policy choice that effectively overrides our <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">legislature</span>'s decision</span> to give parents of an injured child two years from the time that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> know or reasonably should know that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> have such a claim to file suit.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="29597" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="29597" data-sentence-id="29597" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29597"><span class="ldml-cite">¶37</span></a></span> As to the first point, it is not at all clear that Alexander's parents, and not Alexander, have incurred the medical expenses at issue.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29597" data-sentence-id="29737" class="ldml-sentence">Among other things, such an assertion ignores <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' substantial disagreement as to whether HCPF can recover the pre-majority medical expenses that it has advanced by imposing a lien against the judgment that Alexander has obtained.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29597" data-sentence-id="29976" class="ldml-sentence">If, as Alexander argues, with some force and contrary to the ruling of the division below, that HCPF can impose such a lien, then <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> would, in fact, have incurred the medical expenses at issue.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29597" data-sentence-id="30170" class="ldml-sentence">In light of our decision to abandon the common law rule, however, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not reach this issue.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="30265" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="30265" data-sentence-id="30265" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30265"><span class="ldml-cite">¶38</span></a></span> As to the second point, regarding our <span class="ldml-entity">legislature</span>'s policy choices, the argument appears to assume, albeit incorrectly, that <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> has adopted the common law rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30265" data-sentence-id="30443" class="ldml-sentence">As noted above, however, <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> has enacted a two-year <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations for negligence claims against a health-care professional, and it has expressly tolled that limitations period for minors like Alexander, for whom <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> has not appointed a legal guardian, thereby allowing such claims to be brought until as late as the minor's twentieth birthday.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30265" data-sentence-id="30812" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30443"><span class="ldml-cite">§§ 13-80-102.5<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(d)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(II)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30443"><span class="ldml-cite">13-81-103<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30443"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Elgin</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">994 P.2d at 414</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30265" data-sentence-id="30889" class="ldml-sentence">Nothing in the foregoing provisions <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(or in any other provisions of which <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are aware)</span> states that only a minor's parents have the right to recover their child's pre-majority medical expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30265" data-sentence-id="31082" class="ldml-sentence">Nor has our <span class="ldml-entity">legislature</span> otherwise adopted the common law rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30265" data-sentence-id="31145" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, our determination today is fully consistent with —and in no way contradicts — the policy choices made by our <span class="ldml-entity">legislature</span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do no more than abandon <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span>-made doctrine that is no longer supported by the policies that previously sustained it.<a href="#note-fr2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr2">2</a></span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_31407" data-val="785"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="31407" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="31407" data-sentence-id="31408" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31408"><span class="ldml-cite">¶39</span></a></span> In contrast to the foregoing public policy arguments, Alexander contends that the negative impact of our ongoing adherence to the common law rule on Colorado's Medicaid program undermines broader public policy goals.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31407" data-sentence-id="31629" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> are persuaded by this concern.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="31662" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="31662" data-sentence-id="31663" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31663"><span class="ldml-cite">¶40</span></a></span> The General Assembly has recognized the importance of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[e]</span>nsuring that all <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> have access to affordable, quality, continuous, and equitable health-care"</span> and that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Coloradans with low incomes"</span> have <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"historically and systemically faced barriers to health."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31662" data-sentence-id="31926" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31663"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 10-16-1302<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span>-<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31662" data-sentence-id="31965" class="ldml-sentence">Medicaid is designed to address these barriers by providing <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"medical assistance to persons whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary care and services."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31662" data-sentence-id="32151" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891644350" data-vids="891644350" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31965"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Atkins v. Rivera</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">477 U.S. 154, 156</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">106 S.Ct. 2456</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">91 L.Ed.2d 131</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1986</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_32266,sentence_31965"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 25.5-4-102, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">detailing the purpose of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31965"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Medical Assistance Act</span></a></span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31662" data-sentence-id="32329" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, almost forty percent of Colorado children are covered by Medicaid.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31662" data-sentence-id="32402" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Colo. Health</span> <span class="ldml-cite">Inst., 2021</span></a></span> Colorado Health Access Survey: Health Insurance, Ages 0-18, https://www.coloradohealthinstitute.org/sites/default/files/file_attachments/Health%20Insurance%20Workbook%202021.xlsx <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/6UZM-8R9X]</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="32635" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="32635" data-sentence-id="32636" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32636"><span class="ldml-cite">¶41</span></a></span> In order to participate in Medicaid, federal law requires states to seek reimbursement for medical expenditures when a liable third <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> is identified.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32635" data-sentence-id="32793" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/944488845" data-vids="944488845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32636"><span class="ldml-cite">42 U.S.C. § 1396a<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(25)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(A)</span>-<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(B)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32636" data-refglobal="regulation:/us/regulations/42/433/140_a_1"><span class="ldml-cite">42 C.F.R. § 433.140<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32635" data-sentence-id="32854" class="ldml-sentence">This requirement <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"protects the public fisc while preventing Medicaid beneficiaries from receiving a windfall."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="32635" data-sentence-id="32965" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32854" data-refglobal="case:tristaniexrelkarnesvrichman,652f3d360,370377-783dcir2011"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Tristani ex rel. Karnes v. Richman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">652 F.3d 360, 373</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">3d Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2011</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32635" data-sentence-id="33035" class="ldml-sentence">To this end, <span class="ldml-entity">section</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">25.5-4-301<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span>, provides that, when HCPF has furnished medical assistance to or on behalf of a Medicaid recipient and for which a third <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> is liable, HCPF shall have an automatic statutory lien against <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"any judgment, award, or settlement in a suit or claim against such third <span class="ldml-entity">party</span>,"</span> to the extent of the amount of medical assistance provided.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="33419" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="33419" data-sentence-id="33419" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33419"><span class="ldml-cite">¶42</span></a></span> Under the common law rule, when an injured child is covered by Medicaid and their parents fail to file a timely claim for pre-majority medical expenses, neither the child nor their parents can recover these damages, thereby reducing <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(if not eliminating)</span> the pool of funds from which HCPF can seek reimbursement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33419" data-sentence-id="33735" class="ldml-sentence">In turn, less funding is available to pay for the care of individuals who rely on Medicaid throughout <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33419" data-sentence-id="33848" class="ldml-sentence">And in such a scenario, the tortfeasor escapes liability while taxpayers are left holding the bag, which is directly contrary to the long-settled principle that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"whoever unlawfully injures another shall make her whole."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="33419" data-sentence-id="34068" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890366914" data-vids="890366914" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33848"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Preston v. Dupont</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">35 P.3d 433, 441</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2001</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">accord</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889095166" data-vids="889095166" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33848"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Bullerdick v. Pritchard</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">90 Colo. 272</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">8 P.2d 705, 706</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1932</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="34189" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="34189" data-sentence-id="34189" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34189"><span class="ldml-cite">¶43</span></a></span> In addition to the foregoing, as <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> amply demonstrates, the exceptions to the common law rule can often generate difficult questions of law, including questions regarding the propriety and scope of medical liens.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34189" data-sentence-id="34413" class="ldml-sentence">It is not clear to <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> why anyone is better served by retaining antiquated rules that trigger substantial litigation, rather than adopting a clear and simple rule that permits children to recover and medical providers to assert liens, as allowable by law, against that recovery.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="34690" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="34690" data-sentence-id="34690" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34690"><span class="ldml-cite">¶44</span></a></span> Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are persuaded that sound reasons exist for departing from the common law rule and that more good than harm will come from our doing so.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34690" data-sentence-id="34846" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore now conclude that injured children may recover their pre-majority medical expenses in <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> like this one.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34690" data-sentence-id="34966" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> thus overrule <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34966"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Pressey</i></span></a></span> and any <span class="ldml-entity">decisions of <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span></span> or of <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_35029" data-val="786"></span> divisions of our <span class="ldml-entity">court of appeals</span> that have explicitly or implicitly followed the common law rule.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="35128" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="35128" data-sentence-id="35128" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35128"><span class="ldml-cite">¶45</span></a></span> Having so determined, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> recognize that situations exist in which parents continue to shoulder perhaps substantial out-of-pocket costs for a child's injuries.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35128" data-sentence-id="35291" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> further conclude that a flexible rule —one that allows both parents and their unemancipated minor child to recover damages for pre-majority expenses as long as no double recovery is permitted—best meets the unique challenges faced by families of injured children.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35128" data-sentence-id="35571" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, of the approaches adopted by states that have abandoned the common law rule, recognizing joint ownership of such claims, subject to a prohibition on double recovery, appears to be the most common.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35128" data-sentence-id="35776" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886336932" data-vids="886336932" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35571"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">DeSela</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">249 P.3d at 770</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35571" data-refglobal="case:whitevmorenovalleyunifiedschooldistricte000576226calrptr742,181calapp3d1024,32edlawrep691may30,1986"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">White</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">226 Cal. Rptr. at 745-46</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895316646" data-vids="895316646" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35571"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Scott Cnty. Sch. Dist. 1</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">324 N.E.2d at 499</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/899859708" data-vids="899859708" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35571"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Boley</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">905 S.W.2d at 90</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35571" data-refglobal="case:lopezvsouthwestcommunityhealthservicesno11543833p2d1183,114nm2,114nm4april2,1992"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Lopez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">833 P.2d at 1192</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889108927" data-vids="889108927" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35571"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Czimmer</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">122 A.3d at 1064</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895199471" data-vids="895199471" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35571"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ho-Rath</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">115 A.3d at 950</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35571" data-refglobal="case:stateexrelpackardvperry,221wva526,532,655se2d5482007"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Packard</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">655 S.E.2d at 561</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35128" data-sentence-id="36029" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree with this approach, which acknowledges the settled principle of tort law that those who incur economic damages may recover them, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> follow that approach here.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="36200" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="36200" data-sentence-id="36200" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36200"><span class="ldml-cite">¶46</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> emphasize that our decision today addresses the narrow question of who may seek a specific remedy when an unemancipated minor is injured.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36200" data-sentence-id="36345" class="ldml-sentence">It does not create a new class of claims for <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> to adjudicate.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36200" data-sentence-id="36412" class="ldml-sentence">Nor does it impose new duties or obligations on <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36200" data-sentence-id="36473" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have little concern that our departure from the common law rule creates an unworkable situation for the judiciary or unfairly disturbs the settled expectations of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>, as Dr. Bianco contends.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36200" data-sentence-id="36689" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, our decision reflects the fact that the advent of health insurance, coupled with society's reticence to treat children as their parents' servants, leave the common law rule bereft of theoretical support.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="36901" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="36901" data-sentence-id="36901" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36901"><span class="ldml-cite">¶47</span></a></span> In light of our foregoing determination, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not address the question of whether HCPF has a valid lien against Alexander's recovery of post-majority damages, such that an exception to the common law rule applies here.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="III" data-ordinal_start="3" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="III. Conclusion" data-content-heading-label="III. Conclusion" data-id="heading_37126" data-ordinal_end="3" data-types="conclusion" id="heading_37126"><span data-paragraph-id="37126" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="37126" data-sentence-id="37126" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37126" data-sentence-id="37131" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="37141" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="37141" data-sentence-id="37142" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37142"><span class="ldml-cite">¶48</span></a></span> For these reasons, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> abandon the common law rule that allows only parents to recover their injured, unemancipated minor child's pre-majority medical expenses, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that in <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> involving an unemancipated minor child, either the child or their parents may recover such expenses, but double recovery is not permitted.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="37474" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="37474" data-sentence-id="37474" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37474"><span class="ldml-cite">¶49</span></a></span> Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse the judgment of the division below, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> remand <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="37615" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Dissenting Opinion (HART, HART)"><span data-paragraph-id="37615" data-sentence-id="37615" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HART</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">dissents</span></span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">CHIEF JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">BOATRIGHT</span> and JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">MÁRQUEZ</span> join in the dissent</span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="37706" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor"><span data-paragraph-id="37706" data-sentence-id="37706" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HART</span></span>, <span class="ldml-opiniontype">dissenting</span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="37731" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="37731" data-sentence-id="37731" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37731"><span class="ldml-cite">¶50</span></a></span> Although the majority does not mention <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations until paragraph sixteen of its opinion, that is what <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> is really all about.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37731" data-sentence-id="37885" class="ldml-sentence">Under current law, parents — who are legally responsible to provide for their child's medical care—have two years from the time <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> should have known of a cause of action to bring a claim against the alleged tortfeasor to recover medical expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37731" data-sentence-id="38134" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37885"><span class="ldml-cite">§§ 13-80-102.5<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, 108<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37731" data-sentence-id="38175" class="ldml-sentence">However, for purposes of an unemancipated minor's negligence claim against a health care professional, <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations set forth in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38175"><span class="ldml-cite">section 13-80-102.5<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"begins to run when the minor reaches the age of eighteen or when, if it does, <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> appoints a legal representative for the minor."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="37731" data-sentence-id="38476" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38175"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Elgin v. Bartlett</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">994 P.2d 411, 414</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37731" data-sentence-id="38527" class="ldml-sentence">And, as <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> noted in <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38527"><span class="ldml-refname">Elgin</span></a></span>,</i> our General Assembly has not chosen to toll <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations on the parents' claims during the time that the limitations period on the child's claim is tolled.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37731" data-sentence-id="38724" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38527"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 414-16</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37731" data-sentence-id="38739" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' arguments about who owns the claim for pre-majority medical expenses is fundamentally an argument about whether <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations began to run when <span class="ldml-entity">Alexander Rudnicki</span>'s parents knew <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had a claim <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(shortly after his birth)</span> or whether <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations remains open until two years after Alexander's eighteenth birthday — twenty years after the tortious conduct that caused his injuries.<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_39164" data-val="787"></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="39164" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="39164" data-sentence-id="39165" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39165"><span class="ldml-cite">¶51</span></a></span> The majority opens its opinion by misstating the question presented.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39164" data-sentence-id="39238" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> are not tasked with determining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"who may recover damages for the medical expenses <i class="ldml-italics">that a child incurs</i> prior to turning eighteen."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="39164" data-sentence-id="39371" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39238"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 1</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39164" data-sentence-id="39402" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Alexander Rudnicki</span>, who was tragically injured at birth and is now sixteen years old, did not prove that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> —rather than <i class="ldml-italics">his parents —</i> incurred any medical expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39164" data-sentence-id="39568" class="ldml-sentence">If <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had, then under our settled law <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> would be entitled to recover damages for them.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39164" data-sentence-id="39656" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39568"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Pressey v. Children's Hosp. Colo.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2017 COA 28</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39568"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 26</span></a></span></span>, 28, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_39739"><span class="ldml-cite">488 P.3d 151, 159</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that a minor can recover pre-majority medical expenses if <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> actually incurred them</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39164" data-sentence-id="39834" class="ldml-sentence">And, under our settled law, a child is not entitled to sue to recover medical expenses incurred by their parents.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39164" data-sentence-id="39948" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39834"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="39164" data-sentence-id="39952" class="ldml-sentence">That claim belongs to the parents because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> incurred the expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39164" data-sentence-id="40022" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39952"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Elgin</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">994 P.2d at 416, 420</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39164" data-sentence-id="40057" class="ldml-sentence">The question <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> confront today is whether <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> should abandon our precedent in order to extend <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations for medical expense claims arising from injury to a child from the legislatively established <i class="ldml-italics">two years</i> to as many as <i class="ldml-italics">twenty years.</i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="39164" data-sentence-id="40308" class="ldml-sentence">Because <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are not legislators, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> should not.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39164" data-sentence-id="40355" class="ldml-sentence">I therefore respectfully dissent.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="40388" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="40388" data-sentence-id="40388" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40388"><span class="ldml-cite">¶52</span></a></span> Everybody involved in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> agrees that Colorado law until today has provided that in general the parents of an injured child, not the child themselves, may bring a tort action seeking damages for the medical expenses associated with the child's injury.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40388" data-sentence-id="40650" class="ldml-sentence">The General Assembly decided that the parents of an injured child have two years from the time <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> know or reasonably should know that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> have such a claim to file suit.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40388" data-sentence-id="40823" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> noted in <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40823"><span class="ldml-refname">Elgin</span></a></span>,</i> though the General Assembly has created certain tolling provisions — like that which applies to minors —it has not chosen to create an exception for claims like these.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40388" data-sentence-id="41013" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40823"><span class="ldml-cite">994 P.2d at 416</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40388" data-sentence-id="41030" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The statute</span> of limitations, together with the absence of a tolling provision, represents the General Assembly's policy determination that a two-year limit properly balances <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span>'s need for time to sue with <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s need for finality and the difficulty of litigating stale claims.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="41325" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="41325" data-sentence-id="41325" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41325"><span class="ldml-cite">¶53</span></a></span> Today, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> replaces this legislative policy determination with its own judgment about <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"broader public policy goals,"</span> maj. <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 39</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> it effectively repeals <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s two-year limitations period and enacts one that could lead to litigation as many as twenty years after the allegedly tortious conduct occurs.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41325" data-sentence-id="41651" class="ldml-sentence">Not only is this policy decision outside <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s proper sphere of action, I fear that doing it through this sideways approach may have a range of unintended and harmful consequences.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="41837" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="41837" data-sentence-id="41837" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41837"><span class="ldml-cite">¶54</span></a></span> To expand <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations for these claims, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> abandons Colorado's longstanding common law rule that the right to pursue claims for pre-majority medical expenses paid for a childhood injury belongs to the parents.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41837" data-sentence-id="42073" class="ldml-sentence">The majority acknowledges that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have said that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[w]</span>e will depart from our existing law only if <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are clearly convinced that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changing conditions and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> more good than harm will come from departing from precedent.’</span> "</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="41837" data-sentence-id="42364" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42073"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 18</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42073" data-refglobal="case:lovevklosky,2018co20"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Love v. Klosky</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2018 CO 20</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42073"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 15</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886790822" data-vids="886790822" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42073"><span class="ldml-cite">413 P.3d 1267, 1270</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41837" data-sentence-id="42441" class="ldml-sentence">It then concludes that the reasons for the common law rule are no longer sound and that abandoning the rule will do more good than harm.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41837" data-sentence-id="42578" class="ldml-sentence">The majority is wrong on both fronts.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="I" data-ordinal_start="1" data-value="I. Sound Reasons Support the Rule Giving a Right to Recover Medical Expenses to the Parents of a Minor Child" data-content-heading-label="I. Sound Reasons Support the Rule Giving a Right to Recover Medical Expenses to the Parents of a Minor Child" data-id="heading_42615" data-ordinal_end="1" id="heading_42615"><span data-paragraph-id="42615" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="42615" data-sentence-id="42615" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42615" data-sentence-id="42618" class="ldml-sentence">Sound Reasons Support the Rule Giving a Right to Recover Medical Expenses to the Parents of a Minor Child</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="42723" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="42723" data-sentence-id="42723" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42723"><span class="ldml-cite">¶55</span></a></span> Certainly, it is an old rule that the parents, and not the child, are entitled to recovery for medical expenses incurred because of injury to a child.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42723" data-sentence-id="42878" class="ldml-sentence">And certainly, because it is an old rule, if <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> trace it to its oldest common law origins, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> can find legal citations that justify it with reference to men owning other <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> and to long-outdated sexist assumptions about the relationship between a male head of household and his wife and children.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42723" data-sentence-id="43178" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See, e.g.,</i> maj. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶¶ 19-21</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42723" data-sentence-id="43208" class="ldml-sentence">But nobody today — or I dare say in the past half-century — has justified the rule on those terms.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42723" data-sentence-id="43307" class="ldml-sentence">The common law rule is justified today because the current reality is that parents—not infants, toddlers, or even teenagers — are responsible for the medical costs associated with the injury of a child.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42723" data-sentence-id="43510" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43307" data-refglobal="case:inreestateofreed,201p3d1264,1269coloapp2008"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">In re Est. of Reed</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">201 P.3d 1264, 1267</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2008</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43307"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 14-6-110, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_43610" data-val="788"></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"The expenses of the family and the education of the children are chargeable upon the property of both husband and wife, or either of them, and in relation thereto <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> may be sued jointly or separately."</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_43851,sentence_43307"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 14-10-115<span class="ldml-headnoteanchor"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(10)</span></span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">addressing a parent's obligation to provide a child's medical insurance and pay extraordinary medical expenses</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42723" data-sentence-id="43964" class="ldml-sentence">As the majority concedes, parents remain legally responsible for their children.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42723" data-sentence-id="44045" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43964"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 25</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42723" data-sentence-id="44060" class="ldml-sentence">Parents are generally legally obligated to insure their children.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42723" data-sentence-id="44126" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/943658329" data-vids="943658329" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44060"><span class="ldml-cite">26 U.S.C. § 5000A<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42723" data-sentence-id="44148" class="ldml-sentence">Parents are the ones who make decisions, in consultation with doctors, about their children's medical care.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42723" data-sentence-id="44256" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885892535" data-vids="885892535" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_44307,sentence_44148"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">In re D.I.S.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">249 P.3d 775, 780</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2011</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887948508" data-vids="887948508" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_44482,sentence_44148"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Parham v. J. R.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">442 U.S. 584, 603</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">99 S.Ct. 2493</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">61 L.Ed.2d 101</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1979</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Parents can and must make those judgments."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_44725,sentence_44148"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 14-10-130, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">addressing allocation of parental responsibility, including responsibility for decisions over health care</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="44832" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="44832" data-sentence-id="44832" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44832"><span class="ldml-cite">¶56</span></a></span> Although his botched delivery tragically left him with serious injuries and associated medical expenses from the moment <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> entered this world, <span class="ldml-entity">Alexander Rudnicki</span> has not been asked to pay those expenses or to provide his own insurance to cover them.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44832" data-sentence-id="45086" class="ldml-sentence">His parents have.<a href="#note-fr_1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_1">1</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="44832" data-sentence-id="45104" class="ldml-sentence">The employer-provided health care that covered some of the expenses was not provided by baby Alexander's employer.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44832" data-sentence-id="45219" class="ldml-sentence">It was provided by the employer of one of his parents.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44832" data-sentence-id="45274" class="ldml-sentence">Alexander did not apply for Medicaid coverage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44832" data-sentence-id="45321" class="ldml-sentence">His parents did.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44832" data-sentence-id="45338" class="ldml-sentence">Alexander's parents were responsible for ensuring that his medical needs were covered.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44832" data-sentence-id="45425" class="ldml-sentence">This responsibility may be historically rooted in justifications that make no sense today, but that does not mean that the responsibility itself makes no sense today.</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><p data-paragraph-id="45591" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="45591" data-sentence-id="45591" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45591"><span class="ldml-cite">¶57</span></a></span> Moreover, the common law rule, when considered in its entirety, rests on a central principle of tort law, which <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> also effectively abandons today: the person who has incurred economic damages is the person entitled to recover them.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45591" data-sentence-id="45835" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45591"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Elgin</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">994 P.2d at 416</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45591" data-sentence-id="45859" class="ldml-sentence">For this reason, Colorado, like the many other jurisdictions that follow the common law rule, recognizes exceptions to the rule that a minor cannot recover for pre-majority medical expenses when</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_46053" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="46053" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> the minor child has paid or agreed to pay the expenses; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> the minor child is legally responsible for payment <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(emancipation, death or incompetency of the parents)</span>; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> ... the parents waive or assign their right to recovery in favor of the minor; or <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span> ... recovery of expenses is permitted by <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="46361" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="46361" data-sentence-id="46362" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Pressey</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 28</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">488 P.3d at 159</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890584345" data-vids="890584345" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Betz v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Agency of Kan., Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">269 Kan. 554</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">8 P.3d 756, 760</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2000</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46361" data-sentence-id="46494" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> correctly concluded that the Rudnickis failed to show that any of these exceptions apply in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46361" data-sentence-id="46618" class="ldml-sentence">But these exceptions are generally sufficient to ensure that a minor who <i class="ldml-italics">actually</i> incurs medical expenses themselves will be able to recover for those expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46361" data-sentence-id="46779" class="ldml-sentence">The common law rule is therefore sound, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> should not abandon it.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="46848" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="46848" data-sentence-id="46848" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46848"><span class="ldml-cite">¶58</span></a></span> Contrary to the majority's assertion otherwise, there is not a clear nationwide <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"trend"</span> in the direction of allowing children <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_46978" data-val="789"></span> to sue to recover pre-majority medical expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46848" data-sentence-id="47028" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46848"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 27</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46848" data-sentence-id="47043" class="ldml-sentence">Nine of the eighteen <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> the majority cites in support of this trend were decided before our <span class="ldml-entity">decision in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47043"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Elgin</i></span></a></span></span>, our most recent affirmation of the common law rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46848" data-sentence-id="47209" class="ldml-sentence">One is a <span class="ldml-entity">federal district court</span> case that purports to apply Kansas law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46848" data-sentence-id="47281" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888746420" data-vids="888746420" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47209"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Villa v. Roberts</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">80 F. Supp. 2d 1229, 1233-34</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">D. Kan.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2000</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46848" data-sentence-id="47349" class="ldml-sentence">In fact, Kansas adheres to the common law rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46848" data-sentence-id="47397" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889819927" data-vids="889819927" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47349"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wilson v. Knight</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">26 Kan.App.2d 226</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">982 P.2d 400, 406</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="47464" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="47464" data-sentence-id="47464" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47464"><span class="ldml-cite">¶59</span></a></span> Notably, many of the states that do permit children to sue to recover those expenses do so because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> have a robust version of the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"common law doctrine of necessaries"</span> — the idea that a child is independently liable for those medical expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47464" data-sentence-id="47714" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_47795,sentence_47464" data-refglobal="case:stateexrelpackardvperry,221wva526,532,655se2d5482007"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">State ex rel. Packard v. Perry</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">221 W.Va. 526</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">655 S.E.2d 548, 559</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2007</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Application of the common law doctrine of necessaries confirms that in West Virginia, a minor may be responsible for his or her own medical expenses."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_48045,sentence_47464" data-refglobal="case:whitevmorenovalleyunifiedschooldistricte000576226calrptr742,181calapp3d1024,32edlawrep691may30,1986"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">White v. Moreno Valley Unified Sch. Dist.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">181 Cal.App.3d 1024</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">226 Cal. Rptr. 742, 745</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1986</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The parents of a minor are normally responsible for medical and hospital care furnished the minor, and the cause of action to recover those items normally rests with the parents.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">But the child is also liable for the reasonable value of those expenses."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47464" data-refglobal="case:baumanvcityandcountyofsanfrancisco,42calapp2d144at164--165,108p2d989at1000"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Bauman v. San Francisco</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">42 Cal.App.2d 144</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">108 P.2d 989, 999</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1940</span>)</span></a></span> )</span>)</span></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895316646" data-vids="895316646" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_48457,sentence_47464"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Scott Cnty. Sch. Dist. 1 v. Asher</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">263 Ind. 47</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">324 N.E.2d 496, 499</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1975</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The necessity for <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[medical expenses]</span> is seldom disputed.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">There is no reason to insulate either child or parent from the doctor's or hospital's suit. ...</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Since the child received the service and it was necessary, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> is liable."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/899859708" data-vids="899859708" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_48735,sentence_47464"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Boley v. Knowles</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">905 S.W.2d 86, 89</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Mo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The common law vested the medical expense action in the parents because the parents were responsible to pay such expenses.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Because minors can often be held liable for medical expenses incurred for their treatment, this rationale for granting the primary cause of action for medical expenses in the parents is questionable."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_49145,sentence_47464" data-refglobal="case:lopezvsouthwestcommunityhealthservicesno11543833p2d1183,114nm2,114nm4april2,1992"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Lopez v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">114 N.M. 2</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">833 P.2d 1183, 1192</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Ct. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1992</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[M]</span>inors are usually liable for the value of necessaries furnished to them."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47464" data-sentence-id="49225" class="ldml-sentence">In these states, the exception that Colorado has recognized to the common law rule — the idea that a child can recover for medical expenses if <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are actually liable for them, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49225"><span class="ldml-refname">Pressey</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49225"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 26</span></a></span></span>, 28, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886595537" data-vids="886595537" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49225"><span class="ldml-cite">488 P.3d at 159</span></a></span> — is simply in force at all times.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="49473" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="49473" data-sentence-id="49473" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49473"><span class="ldml-cite">¶60</span></a></span> And, in contrast to today's decision, in six of the states cited by the majority to support its decision to abandon stare decisis, maj. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 28</span></a></span>, there was no judicial abandonment of a previously adhered to common law rule.<a href="#note-fr_2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_2">2</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="49473" data-sentence-id="49701" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, it was <span class="ldml-entity">the <i class="ldml-italics">state</i></span><i class="ldml-italics"> <span class="ldml-entity">legislature</span></i> that made the policy decision to toll <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations on the parents' claims so that it is the same as that applicable to the child's claims.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49473" data-sentence-id="49892" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/943330516" data-vids="943330516" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_49937,sentence_49701"><span class="ldml-cite">735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-212<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">establishing an eight-year <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations for medical claims arising out of care provided to a minor</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/945074646" data-vids="945074646" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_50086,sentence_49701"><span class="ldml-cite">735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-203</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">applying the same <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations and tolling rules to loss of consortium claims based on injury to a child</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/943670189" data-vids="943670189" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_50239,sentence_49701"><span class="ldml-cite">N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2.1</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">providing that a time period for the commencement of a parent's claim is coextensive with the period applicable to the child's claim</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/945170225" data-vids="945170225" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49701"><span class="ldml-cite">Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.160<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890466992" data-vids="890466992" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_50482,sentence_49701"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Matranga v. W. End Tile Co.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-cite">357 Mass. 194</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">257 N.E.2d 433, 435</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1970</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">citing the now-repealed <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations that provided that a parent's claims can be tried with the child's, so long as the child has a pending action</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_50722,sentence_49701" data-refglobal="case:fehrenbachvomalleyno2005-2283,no2005-2301862ne2d489,113ohiost3d18,2007-ohio-971decidedmarch21,2007"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Fehrenbach v. O'Malley</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">113 Ohio St.3d 18</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2007 -Ohio- 971</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">862 N.E.2d 489, 493</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">citing the Ohio <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> that tolls a minor's claims until <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> have reached majority and provides that <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> with joint and inseparable claims share the same tolling right</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_50970,sentence_49701" data-refglobal="case:korthvamericanfamilyinsurancecompanyno82-1030340nw2d494,115wis2d326decidednov30,1983"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Korth v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">115 Wis.2d 326</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">340 N.W.2d 494, 497</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1983</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">construing</span> Wisconsin's <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> of limitations in concluding that the parents' claim period was tolled during the period that the child's claim <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_51114" data-val="790"></span> was tolled</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49473" data-sentence-id="51128" class="ldml-sentence">If the General Assembly wants to alter the relevant <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> of limitations, that is a policy decision well within its discretion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49473" data-sentence-id="51259" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> noted in <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_51259"><span class="ldml-refname">Elgin</span></a></span>,</i> that has not happened.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49473" data-sentence-id="51304" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_51259"><span class="ldml-cite">994 P.2d at 416</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="51320" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="51320" data-sentence-id="51320" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_51320"><span class="ldml-cite">¶61</span></a></span> Indeed, though the majority contends that <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> has never adopted the common law rule and accordingly the decision today is consistent with <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s other policy choices, maj. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 38</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> has determined that the common law generally prevails, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 2-4-211, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span>, thus compelling <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> to construe alterations strictly and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"only recognize changes that the General Assembly has expressly mandated or necessarily implied by subsequent <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888537110" data-vids="888537110" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_51320"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Oram v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">255 P.3d 1032, 1036</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2011</span>)</span></a></span>, <i class="ldml-italics">as modified on denial of reh'g</i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">Aug. 1, 2011</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="51320" data-sentence-id="51911" class="ldml-sentence">As the General Assembly has determined, and as <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have recognized many times before, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> should not be making significant policy changes through the guise of reconsidering common law precedent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="51320" data-sentence-id="52104" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889197204" data-vids="889197204" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_52187,sentence_51911"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Clancy Sys. Int'l., Inc. v. Salazar</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">177 P.3d 1235, 1237</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2008</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">recognizing that because the General Assembly <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"has chosen to give the common law of England full force until repealed by legislative authority,"</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> will not lightly presume <span class="ldml-entity">legislative intent</span>"</span> to modify the common law <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_51911"><span class="ldml-cite">section 2-4-211</span></a></span> )</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="II" data-ordinal_start="2" data-value="II. It is Far From Clear that Abandoning Precedent Will Do More Good Than Harm" data-content-heading-label="II. It is Far From Clear that Abandoning Precedent Will Do More Good Than Harm" data-id="heading_52437" data-ordinal_end="2" id="heading_52437"><span data-paragraph-id="52437" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="52437" data-sentence-id="52437" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52437" data-sentence-id="52441" class="ldml-sentence">It is Far From Clear that Abandoning Precedent Will Do More Good Than Harm</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="52515" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="52515" data-sentence-id="52515" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_52515"><span class="ldml-cite">¶62</span></a></span> The majority engages in this policy-making to fix a perceived deficit in the ability of <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span>'s Medicaid program to protect <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the public fisc."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="52515" data-sentence-id="52666" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_52515"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 41</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52515" data-sentence-id="52681" class="ldml-sentence">For two reasons, I am unpersuaded that because of some gaps in reimbursement <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> should abandon precedent and reject principles of stare decisis.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52515" data-sentence-id="52826" class="ldml-sentence">First, that fix is not ours to make.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52515" data-sentence-id="52863" class="ldml-sentence">And second, I fear that the majority's method for making that fix —by creating a co-owned claim and dramatically extending <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations — invites a considerable range of unintended consequences.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="53071" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="53071" data-sentence-id="53071" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53071"><span class="ldml-cite">¶63</span></a></span> As to the first point, it is not our role to improve a legislative and administrative landscape that does not always lead to reimbursement of third-<span class="ldml-entity">party</span> payors.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53071" data-sentence-id="53237" class="ldml-sentence">The majority asserts that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> should abandon the common law rule because extending <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations on claims for medical expenses will mean that <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span>'s Medicaid program will be more likely to be reimbursed when it provided benefits that covered the medical expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53071" data-sentence-id="53519" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53237"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶¶ 41-42</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53071" data-sentence-id="53538" class="ldml-sentence">While I agree that it would be ideal if Medicaid were reimbursed each time a tortfeasor caused injury that led to medical expenses for which <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> program paid, I do not believe that this laudable goal is sufficient reason to abandon stare decisis and engage in a policy-making exercise that is more appropriately the province of <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="53888" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="53888" data-sentence-id="53888" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53888"><span class="ldml-cite">¶64</span></a></span> The <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"realities of the health care economy,"</span> maj. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 26</span></a></span> —that private insurance or government-provided insurance may often be the entity providing payment for a child's injury-related medical expenses —may support a strong argument for allowing insurers to collect against a third-<span class="ldml-entity">party</span> tortfeasor without having to rely on the parents to bring suit within the legislatively established <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations for their claims.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53888" data-sentence-id="54322" class="ldml-sentence">But those realities do not explain why <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> should create a new indefinite <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations for claims for medical expenses provided to a minor child.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53888" data-sentence-id="54485" class="ldml-sentence">Again, these are issues that should be addressed with a legislative response.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="54562" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="54562" data-sentence-id="54562" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54562"><span class="ldml-cite">¶65</span></a></span> Second, I fear that the majority's new rule will have a wide range of unintended consequences.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54562" data-sentence-id="54661" class="ldml-sentence">Perhaps most importantly, as discussed above, some states have recognized that a child has a right to recover medical expenses because the law in those states makes the child as liable for their medical expenses as the parents.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54562" data-sentence-id="54889" class="ldml-sentence">That has not been the law in Colorado.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54562" data-sentence-id="54928" class="ldml-sentence">But after this opinion, it will certainly be reasonable to assume that it is.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54562" data-sentence-id="55006" class="ldml-sentence">After all, while the immediate impact of this decision in the context of <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> is the extension of <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are effectuating that change by granting ownership of the claim for medical expenses to Alexander.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54562" data-sentence-id="55239" class="ldml-sentence">Ownership of a claim for expenses flows from responsibility for those expenses —hence our pre-existing exceptions to the common law rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54562" data-sentence-id="55377" class="ldml-sentence">What will it mean for Colorado children in Alexander's position that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> bear responsibility for their medical <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_55489" data-val="791"></span> expenses?</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54562" data-sentence-id="55500" class="ldml-sentence">I don't know and neither does the majority.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54562" data-sentence-id="55544" class="ldml-sentence">But child liability is just one of the many potentially worrisome consequences of this abandonment of stare decisis.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="55660" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="55660" data-sentence-id="55660" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55660"><span class="ldml-cite">¶66</span></a></span> On its face, the majority's rule appears simple; it allows <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"both parents and their unemancipated minor child to recover damages for pre-majority expenses as long as no double recovery is permitted."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="55660" data-sentence-id="55863" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55660"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 45</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55660" data-sentence-id="55878" class="ldml-sentence">But lurking behind it is a great deal of uncertainty.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55660" data-sentence-id="55932" class="ldml-sentence">In this context of a co-owned claim, what precisely is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"double recovery"</span>?</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55660" data-sentence-id="56006" class="ldml-sentence">If the parents of a minor bring a claim within the two-year <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations and receive future medical expenses, but the calculation of future expenses proves too low, could the minor subsequently sue to recover medical expenses above and beyond the initial award?</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55660" data-sentence-id="56278" class="ldml-sentence">If the claims of the parents and the minor's claims are truly separate, as <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have held that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886830229" data-vids="886830229" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56278"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Elgin</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">994 P.2d at 416</span></a></span>, each has a right to bring suit on them, so <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> might be able to avoid duplicative recovery, but a potential <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> could easily face duplicative litigation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55660" data-sentence-id="56569" class="ldml-sentence">This uncertainty about how the rule will operate on the ground may well fuel an explosion of difficult litigation.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="56683" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="56683" data-sentence-id="56683" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56683"><span class="ldml-cite">¶67</span></a></span> Further, the effective establishment of an indefinite, potentially two-decades-long <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations on these claims means that claims for medical expenses may often be litigated as stale claims.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56683" data-sentence-id="56889" class="ldml-sentence">Records could be gone.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56683" data-sentence-id="56912" class="ldml-sentence">Memories will have faded.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56683" data-sentence-id="56938" class="ldml-sentence">Experts will have to opine on decades-old standards of care in fast-changing industries.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56683" data-sentence-id="57027" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Statutes</span> of limitations exist precisely to avoid these challenges.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="57093" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="57093" data-sentence-id="57093" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57093"><span class="ldml-cite">¶68</span></a></span> The majority tries to dispense with these concerns by noting that, under current law, minors can bring claims for pain and suffering and for future economic damages — including future medical expenses — after <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> turn eighteen and asserts that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"adding one category of damages"</span> to these others is not a significant alteration of the legal landscape.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57093" data-sentence-id="57447" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57093"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 35</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57093" data-sentence-id="57462" class="ldml-sentence">This assertion ignores the realities of how the particular type of damages at issue here —medical expenses —are treated under current Colorado law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57093" data-sentence-id="57610" class="ldml-sentence">Because of Colorado's collateral source rule, <span class="ldml-entity">a plaintiff</span> claiming medical expenses as an element of damages is permitted to introduce evidence of the billed medical expenses even though what was actually paid most often bears no relationship to what was billed.<a href="#note-fr3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr3">3</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="57093" data-sentence-id="57873" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893947926" data-vids="893947926" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57610"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Crossgrove</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2012 CO 31</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57610"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 21-22</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893947926" data-vids="893947926" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_57956"><span class="ldml-cite">276 P.3d 562, 567</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">describing <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"modern healthcare billing practices"</span> of accepting payments that are <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"significantly less"</span> than amounts billed</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888614883" data-vids="888614883" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Volunteers of Am. Colo. Branch v. Gardenswartz</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">242 P.3d 1080, 1085</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2010</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57093" data-sentence-id="58161" class="ldml-sentence">And <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> is prohibited from introducing any evidence of the amount that was actually paid for medical expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57093" data-sentence-id="58282" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891940441" data-vids="891940441" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58161"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Sunahara v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2012 CO 30M</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58161"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 15</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891940441" data-vids="891940441" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">280 P.3d 649, 654</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893947926" data-vids="893947926" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Crossgrove</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 20-22</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893947926" data-vids="893947926" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_58412"><span class="ldml-cite">276 P.3d at 567-68</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">barring evidence that $40,000 was paid to satisfy medical <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> of $242,000</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57093" data-sentence-id="58489" class="ldml-sentence">Even post-verdict <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> typically cannot reduce liability with evidence of amounts third <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> paid to satisfy <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57093" data-sentence-id="58617" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58489"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 13-21-111.6, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888614883" data-vids="888614883" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58489"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Gardenswartz</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">242 P.3d at 1084</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58489"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Pressey</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 13-16</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57093" data-sentence-id="58699" class="ldml-sentence">The collateral source rule thus puts <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> like Dr. Bianco at a disadvantage as <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> try to explain why the reasonable value of the medical expenses is not actually the billed amount.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="57093" data-sentence-id="58888" class="ldml-sentence">That disadvantage is only exacerbated by the passage of time — explaining the reasonableness of medical costs from twenty years ago is more challenging than explaining the reasonableness of more recent costs.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="59096" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="59096" data-sentence-id="59096" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59096"><span class="ldml-cite">¶69</span></a></span> For these reasons, medical expense damages are different from the damages currently available to an injured child if <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> bring a suit when <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> reach majority.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59096" data-sentence-id="59261" class="ldml-sentence">Importantly, a number of states that do not apply the common law rule at issue today have also modified the collateral source rule to allow evidence of amounts paid to show reasonable value of medical expense damages.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59096" data-sentence-id="59479" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59261" data-refglobal="statute:/mo/statutes/490/715"><span class="ldml-cite">Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.715</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="501" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_59517" data-val="792"></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59261" data-refglobal="case:patchettvlee,60ne3d1025,1033ind2016"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Patchett v. Lee</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">60 N.E. 3d 1025, 1033</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Ind.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2016</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887200835" data-vids="887200835" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59261"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">52 Cal.4th 541</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">129 Cal.Rptr.3d 325</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">257 P.3d 1130, 1138-40</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2011</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889774104" data-vids="889774104" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59261"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Moorhead v. Crozer Chester Med. Ctr.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">564 Pa. 156</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">765 A.2d 786, 789</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2001</span>)</span></a></span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cert">abrogated on other grounds by</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891980940" data-vids="891980940" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59261"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Northbrook Life Ins. Co. v. Com.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">597 Pa. 18</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">949 A.2d 333</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2008</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59096" data-sentence-id="59861" class="ldml-sentence">Several of the states have abandoned the collateral source rule in the particular context of medical malpractice <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59096" data-sentence-id="59981" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/945330161" data-vids="945330161" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59861"><span class="ldml-cite">Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-565</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/944166791" data-vids="944166791" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59861"><span class="ldml-cite">Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.1</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59861"><span class="ldml-cite">40 Pa. Con. Stat. § 1303.508</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/943732656" data-vids="943732656" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59861"><span class="ldml-cite">9 R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-19-34.1</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="60132" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="60132" data-sentence-id="60132" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_60132"><span class="ldml-cite">¶70</span></a></span> Perhaps even more important, many of the states that permit a minor to recover medical expenses on their own behalf do not have <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span> of limitations like Colorado's, which tolls the limitations period until the child reaches eighteen.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="60132" data-sentence-id="60375" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/945320988" data-vids="945320988" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_60423,sentence_60132"><span class="ldml-cite">Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.5</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[Medical malpractice]</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span>ctions by a minor shall be commenced within three years from the date of the alleged wrongful act except that actions by a minor under the full age of six years shall be commenced within three years or prior to his eighth birthday whichever provides a longer period"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_60751,sentence_60132" data-refglobal="statute:/de/statutes/18/6856"><span class="ldml-cite">18 Del. Code Ann. § 6856</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">creating general two-year <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations for medical malpractice actions but allowing a minor under the age of six to bring suit within the general limitations period or until the minor's sixth birthday, whichever is later</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/943330516" data-vids="943330516" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_61025,sentence_60132"><span class="ldml-cite">735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-212<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">establishing an eight-year repose period for actions brought by minors arising out of patient care</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_61159,sentence_60132" data-refglobal="statute:/in/statutes/34/18/7/1_b"><span class="ldml-cite">Ind. Code § 34-18-7-1<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">creating a general two-year limitations period for actions against a health care provider but allowing a minor under six years of age to file suit up until their eighth birthday</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="60132" data-sentence-id="61339" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, a majority of states have a much shorter effective <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations on medical malpractice claims for injuries to minors than Colorado.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="60132" data-sentence-id="61489" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_61585,sentence_61339" data-refglobal="case:christopherhall,annotation,medicalmalpracticestatutesoflimitationminorityprovisions,71alr5th3071999"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Medical Malpractice Statutes of Limitation Minority Provisions</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">71 A.L.R. 5th 307</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">collecting <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> discussing minority limitation provisions</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="61645" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="61645" data-sentence-id="61645" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61645"><span class="ldml-cite">¶71</span></a></span> Given the rest of Colorado's legal landscape, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s decision</span> today to effectively abandon the legislatively determined two-year <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> of limitations on claims against medical providers will almost certainly increase the costs of malpractice insurance and litigation in <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span>, and therefore healthcare costs generally.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="61978" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="61978" data-sentence-id="61978" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61978"><span class="ldml-cite">¶72</span></a></span> The majority may be right that these predictions are too gloomy.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61978" data-sentence-id="62047" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> will not know the precise impact of this change on the health care system for some time.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61978" data-sentence-id="62139" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> know right now, however, that the decision to abandon stare decisis has a destabilizing impact on the legal system.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61978" data-sentence-id="62258" class="ldml-sentence">Our traditional reluctance to abandon precedent stems from a recognition that stare decisis <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"promotes evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="61978" data-sentence-id="62553" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887923557" data-vids="887923557" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_62258"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Payne v. Tennessee</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">501 U.S. 808, 827</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">111 S.Ct. 2597</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">115 L.Ed.2d 720</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1991</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61978" data-sentence-id="62633" class="ldml-sentence">Today, the majority abandons a longstanding precedent without sufficient justification.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61978" data-sentence-id="62721" class="ldml-sentence">I respectfully dissent.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="62744" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="62744" data-sentence-id="62744" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_62744"><span class="ldml-cite">¶73</span></a></span> I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT and JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ join in this dissent.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="62843" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="62843" data-sentence-id="62844" class="ldml-sentence">The precise issues on which <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted certiorari were framed as follows:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_62917" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="62917" class="ldml-sentence">1.</span> <span data-sentence-id="62920" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> erred in concluding that the <span class="ldml-entity">Department of Healthcare Policy and Financing</span> does not have a valid lien against the minor child <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiff</span>'s recovery.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_63096" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="63096" class="ldml-sentence">2.</span> <span data-sentence-id="63099" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> should abandon the common law rule that tort damages for medical expenses incurred by an unemancipated minor may be recovered only through a derivative claim brought by the minor's parents.</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="63307" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="63307" data-sentence-id="63308" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_63308"><span class="ldml-cite">Section 2-4-211</span></a></span>, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2021</span>)</span>, which no <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> raised in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>, does not suggest that <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> has tacitly adopted the common law rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63307" data-sentence-id="63455" class="ldml-sentence">It is not clear to <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> that that <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>, which adopts portions of the common law of England in existence prior to 1607, at least until repealed by legislative authority, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_63455"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span>,</i> even applies here, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_63455" data-refglobal="case:lovatovthedistrictcourtno79sa407601p2d1072,198colo419oct15,1979"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Lovato v. Dist. Ct.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">198 Colo. 419</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">601 P.2d 1072, 1075</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1979</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">recognizing <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"that the statutory adoption of the common law is limited to the extent that it is reasonable to apply the English common law to the needs and conditions of our state"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63307" data-sentence-id="63900" class="ldml-sentence">Nor have <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> ever construed <span class="ldml-entity">this statute</span> to preclude <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> from departing from existing precedent in appropriate <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63307" data-sentence-id="64016" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_64077,sentence_63900" data-refglobal="case:seelobatovstate,218p3d358,371colo2009lobatoi"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Lobato v. State</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">218 P.3d 358, 370</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2009</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-entity">Colorado courts</span> are common law <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> and, as such, possess jurisdiction to construe the common law unless the General Assembly acts to the contrary."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63307" data-sentence-id="64231" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have chosen to depart from existing common law rules when <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have become convinced that those rules were originally erroneous or no longer sound because of changing conditions, and when more good than harm will come from departing from our precedent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63307" data-sentence-id="64493" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64231" data-refglobal="case:peoplevnovotny,2014co18,320p3d1194,2014wl1045961"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Novotny</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2014 CO 18</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64231"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 27</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_64563" data-refglobal="case:320p3d1194,1203"><span class="ldml-cite">320 P.3d 1194, 1203</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">overruling the automatic-reversal rule for erroneously denied challenges for cause</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894299743" data-vids="894299743" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. LaRosa</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2013 CO 2</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 31</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894299743" data-vids="894299743" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_64702"><span class="ldml-cite">293 P.3d 567, 575</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">abandoning <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>-made corpus delicti rule because sound reasons existed for doing so</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887890559" data-vids="887890559" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Bedor v. Johnson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2013 CO 4</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 34-35</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887890559" data-vids="887890559" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_64851"><span class="ldml-cite">292 P.3d 924, 931</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">abolishing <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>-made sudden emergency doctrine because its misleading characteristics greatly outweighed its minimal utility</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63307" data-sentence-id="64983" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> perceive no good reason to call into question any of <span class="ldml-entity">these cases</span>, or others like them, here.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="65078" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="65078" data-sentence-id="65079" class="ldml-sentence">Though HCPF asserted it had a lien under <span class="ldml-entity">section</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">25.5-4-301<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2017</span>)</span></a></span>, to recover the $54,791.17 in medical claims HCPF had paid on behalf of Alexander, that lien was found to be invalid.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65078" data-sentence-id="65278" class="ldml-sentence">HCPF did not, despite its assertion, have the automatic statutory right to seek reimbursement for past medical expenses simply because Alexander now had a judgment in his favor, given that Alexander could not recover for the medical expenses that his parents paid, and the judgment awarded only future, post-majority medical expenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65078" data-sentence-id="65613" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_65278" data-refglobal="case:rudnickivbianco,no18ca0215"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Rudnicki v. Bianco</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 18CA0215</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_65278"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 35-43</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">June 6, 2019</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see generally</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887372845" data-vids="887372845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_65790,sentence_65278"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Ahlborn</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">547 U.S. 268</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">126 S.Ct. 1752</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">164 L.Ed.2d 459</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2006</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">ruling that federal Medicaid laws limit amounts state can recover from third-<span class="ldml-entity">party</span> payments to Medicaid recipients</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65078" data-sentence-id="65907" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, the record does not support a finding of any other obligation to pay medical expenses to any <span class="ldml-entity">party</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65078" data-sentence-id="66017" class="ldml-sentence">While <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted certiorari on the question of whether <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> erred in invalidating the Medicaid lien, the majority purports today not to reach that question <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"such that an exception to the common law rule applies."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="65078" data-sentence-id="66246" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66017"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 47</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65078" data-sentence-id="66261" class="ldml-sentence">Notably, however, the majority removes the constraint on HCPF from seeking reimbursement because — as of today — Alexander has a right to the damages for past-medical expenses, and Dr. Bianco will be liable for them.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="66477" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="66477" data-sentence-id="66478" class="ldml-sentence">This actually seems to be true of more than six of the cited <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66477" data-sentence-id="66546" class="ldml-sentence">Indiana, for example, has simply never applied the same common law rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66477" data-sentence-id="66619" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See e.g.</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895316646" data-vids="895316646" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_66655,sentence_66546"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Asher</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">324 N.E.2d at 499</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885920727" data-vids="885920727" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66546"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Cent. Indiana Ry. Co. v. Clark</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">63 Ind.App. 49</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">112 N.E. 892, 893</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1916</span>)</span></a></span> for the applicability of the doctrine of necessaries</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_66820,sentence_66546" data-refglobal="case:whitevmorenovalleyunifiedschooldistricte000576226calrptr742,181calapp3d1024,32edlawrep691may30,1986"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">White</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">226 Cal. Rptr. at 745</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66546" data-refglobal="case:baumanvcityandcountyofsanfrancisco,42calapp2d144at164--165,108p2d989at1000"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Bauman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">108 P.2d at 999</span></a></span> for the notion that children can be liable for medical expenses and so can recover for them</span>)</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="66944" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr3">3</a> <span data-paragraph-id="66944" data-sentence-id="66945" class="ldml-sentence">As amicus Children's Hospital explains in its briefing, most hospitals use a chargemaster database —a comprehensive list of charges for every supply or service a hospital might provide in serving a patient —in producing a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">bill</span>"</span> for medical services.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66944" data-sentence-id="67196" class="ldml-sentence">Those chargemaster charges, however, are not actually the amounts paid by Medicare or Medicaid or by most private insurance companies, which negotiate different rates.</span></p></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div>