161F73DBEC51A42B872583C80079811F Hearing Summary

Vivienne Belmont, representing DORA, testified in support of the Sunset Review of the Colorado Professional Review Act.  She walked the committee through the report and recommendations prepared by DORA (Attachment D).  She answered questions from the committee about data collection and professional review activities. Karen McGovern, representing DORA, was available to answer technical questions about the program. 

The committee heard testimony from four medical malpractice trial attorneys who expressed concerns about the Professional Review Act. 

Peter McClenahan, representing the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association (CTLA), spoke in opposition to the Professional Review Act.  He explained how peer review findings are viewed as privileged information by hospitals owned by large corporations to hide wrong-doing. 

Dan Lipman, representing himself as an attorney, testified in opposition to the Professional Review Act.  He discussed hospitals using peer review investigations to keep information away from injured patients.  

David Woodruff, representing himself as an attorney, testified against the Professional Review Act.  He discussed how patients are significantly impacted by the peer review statute and provided examples of hospitals claiming that peer review investigations are privileged information.  He stressed that hospitals are the only industry entitled to this special protection.   

Matthew Laird, representing himself as an attorney, spoke in opposition to the Professional Review Act.  He gave an example of being denied access to information under peer review quality management regulations. 

The committee asked questions of the trial attorneys about the industries that use peer review.   Further questions were asked about discovery proceedings, investigations, and privileged information  Discussion followed about a patient's right to know what happened.    

Phil Stahel, representing the Colorado Medical Society (CMS), testified in support of the Professional Review Act.  He discussed the benefits of peer review, including quality of care and confidentiality. 

Neal O'Connor, representing CMS and the Colorado Chapter of American College of Emergency Physicians, testified in support of the Professional Review Act.  He provided examples of how peer review results in improved patient care.

Jason Kelly, representing CMS, spoke in favor of the Professional Review Act.  He discussed how peer review drives improvement and quality care.

John Conklin, representing CMS, testified in support of the Professional Review Act.   He discussed quality management, standard of care, proximate law, and current standards and guidelines that apply to the protection of facts. 

Hollynd Hoskins, representing the CTLA, testified in opposition to the Professional Review Act.  She explained how peer review does not have a factual exception and suggested the committee add one.   

Robin Valdez, representing himself, testified in opposition to the Professional Review Act.  He provided a personal example of being denied access to files relating to his mother's death because of the peer review shield. 

Jayla Castille, representing herself, spoke in opposition to the Professional Review Act.  She discussed a misdiagnosis and the lack of follow through with the investigation. 

Kylie Schmidt, representing CTLA, testified in opposition to the Professional Review Act.  She discussed how patients need to seek information through the course of litigation because of peer review privilege. 

Lorraine Parker, representing CTLA, testified in opposition to the Professional Review Act.  She expressed concerns that the act will be re-enacted without understanding the consequences.  She proposed a factual exception to the act. 

Anna Taylor, representing herself, testified in opposition to the Professional Review Act.  She gave a personal account of going into septic shock and losing her fingers after being turned away from the emergency room numerous times.  She stressed that she still has no idea what happened due to the shielding of her case files under peer review privilege.

Yelana Love, Office of Legislative Legal Services, explained LLS NO. 19-0350.01- Amendment #1 regarding Title 12 recodification (Attachment E).