Summaries of Published Opinions, 0621 COBJ, Vol. 50, No. 6 Pg. 97
| Position | Vol. 50, 6 [Page 97] |
April 12, 2021 2021 CO 19. No. 20SC143. Compos v. People. Miranda Warnings—Routine Booking Question Exception—New Crime Exception—Party Presentation Principle.
In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether defendant's Miranda rights were violated when, while in police custody, he was asked his name before receiving Miranda warnings. The Court was also asked to decide whether the division below erred in establishing a "new crime exception" to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,444,478-79 (1966), and applying it here.
In Court held that the question about defendant’s name constituted a custodial interrogation, but, on the facts presented here, defendant’s response was admissible at trial because the question was akin to the type of routine booking question that has been deemed to be excepted from Miranda’s reach. e Court thus armed the judgment of the division below, albeit on other grounds. In light of this decision, the Court did not consider, and therefore vacated, the portion of the division’s judgment establishing, sua sponte, a new crime exception to Miranda
2021 CO 20. No. 19SC546. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Scholle. Workers' Compensation—Subrogation—Collateral Source Doctrine.
The Supreme Court held that a settlement between a workers’ compensation insurer and a third-party tortfeasor for all past medical expenses paid as a result of an on-the-job injury extinguishes the plaintiff -employee’s claim to recover damages for those past medical expenses from the third-party tortfeasor. Because the injured employee need not present evidence of either billed or paid medical expenses in the absence of a viable claim for such expenses, the collateral source rule is not implicated
The Court reversed the judgment of the division below and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
2021 C021.No.l9SA174.Gill v. Waltz. Workers' Compensation—Subrogation—Collateral Source Doctrine.
The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21.1 to answer the following certified questions of law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado: (1) Does a plaintiff have standing to seek damages for personal injuries that were already paid by workers’ compensation insurance where the insurer has settled its subrogation claim directly...
To continue reading
Request your trial