Colorado Law Blog

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it was reasonable for a pursuing police officer to force a fleeing driver off the road by ramming his vehicle from behind. Victor Harris, 19, who was suspected only of speeding, was permanently paralyzed in the accident that resulted.

When oral arguments were heard in February 2007, the Justices debated for an hour over what they had seen in a videotape, and the constitutional conclusions to be drawn. The video shows the view from the dashboard of a police car involved in a high-speed chase in suburban Atlanta. To view the video, you will need REAL media player. The video may be downloaded at the webpage of recent
decisions, simply scroll down to Scott v. Harris.

In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that police do not act unconstitutionally when they try to stop a suspect fleeing at high speed by ramming the suspect's car from the rear, forcing it to crash. The car chase that led to the bumping and crash, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Court, posed "a substantial and immediate risk of serious physical injury to others." Thus, the attempt to terminate the chase by forcing the car off the road was "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. Justice Stevens dissented alone.

Colorado Has Fair Share of High Speed Chases

Over the past nine months, at least a half-dozen high speed chases have been reported by the local press in Colorado. Less than two weeks ago the Colorado State Patrol reported that a was killed when the stolen Ford Expedition he was driving rolled eight times after striking strips of spikes police had set out to try to stop him. A second teen was partially ejected but remained pinned in the car and rescue workers had to cut her from the wreckage. The Elbert County sheriff's office reported that a woman's silver 2005 Expedition had been stolen from the mail pickup station at the Sun Country Meadows subdivision where she lived.

The woman told deputies she had been collecting her mail at 6:35 p.m. Friday when two people stole the car. She called 911, and less than 10 minutes later a deputy saw the SUV run a stop sign. The deputy started a pursuit on County Road 13. Elizabeth police set out the spikes almost a mile from the Elizabeth High School, where traffic was heavy as parents and students arrived to attend a choir concert.

Supreme Court Meets YouTube

Until the mid-1990’s, the U.S. Supreme Court restricted distribution of audio tapes of the oral arguments before the court. Now, the justices have joined the Internet age, including digital access to videotaped evidence with an opinion. Scott v. Harris, No. 05-1631 (April 30)

The grainy clip can’t physically be included in the published opinion, it is referenced in a footnote in which the URL is written out.

This use of new technology is likely to be more interesting to many lawyers than the actual decision. Court observers see the decision to post the clip as a milestone for the court, which has been notoriously reluctant to embrace new technology, especially cameras in its courtroom.

Posted by Linda Chalat at 04:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

By now, most folks have heard about the administrative law judge Roy Pearson Jr. with his $65 million lawsuit against a D.C. dry cleaner for losing a pair of his pants.

Not surprisingly, this isn't the first time Pearson has filed tons of documents and demanded payment in a court case. Just ask his ex-wife. In 2005, the Virginia Court of Appeals denied Pearson's appeal seeking at least $10,000 in spousal support in his divorce from Rhonda VanLowe, legal counsel for Rolls-Royce North America. Pearson wanted VanLowe to help support him because he was receiving unemployment benefits in 2003 before he was appointed as an administrative law judge in 2005.

The trial judge also had ordered him to pay $12,000 in legal fees to VanLowe because Pearson excessively drove up legal costs by "creating unnecessary litigation" and threatened both VanLowe and her lawyer with disbarment, the appeals ruling stated.

The American Association for Justice, the renamed Association of Trial Lawyers of America, filed an ethics complaint against Pearson last week with the D.C. Bar. The American Association for Justice last week called for a disciplinary investigation of Judge Pearson, rightfully observing that the dry cleaning lawsuit provided fuel for the tort reform arguments and hurt plaintiffs with legitimate claims.

It's true that, he is no longer hearing cases, Pearson's term as a judge expired last week, and his bio was taken down from the D.C. website. But for now he remains on the D.C. payroll, "doing administrative work," said a senior city official who declined to be named because he was discussing a personnel matter. Pearson will be in paid limbo for weeks while a commission decides whether to reappoint him for a 10-year term to handle disputes with city agencies.

And Pearson just might win a new term. Before the pants suit became a worldwide story, the city's chief administrative law judge, Tyrone Butler, recommended approval of Pearson's application based on his job performance, said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson and three other sources with direct knowledge of the recommendation.

Posted by Linda Chalat at 01:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Two years ago, Christian Hageseth logged on to the Internet in Colorado and prescribed anti-depressant drugs to a California teenager with a history of mental illness and alcohol abuse. A few months later, 19-year-old John McKay killed himself in his family home.

Upon learning that Hageseth had treated McKay, and that he didn't have a license in California, state medical investigators urged local prosecutors to charge him with a felony. Last year they did, accusing him of practicing without a California license. The maximum penalty, according to the prosecution, would be three years in state prison and state fines.

Now Hageseth -- who had a restricted license in Colorado when he prescribed McKay's medication, according to court documents -- is trying to get the case dismissed, claiming that the state courts lack jurisdiction to try him under California law. Though a San Mateo County judge refused his request, Hageseth's attorney has persuaded the 1st District Court of Appeal to consider issuing a writ that would overturn that decision.
But, if the 1st District agrees with the government's application of medical licensing laws, thousands of out-of-state doctors could face felony prosecution.

The appeal court took the rare step of asking for additional briefing on the court's jurisdiction over out-of-state doctors, suggesting the parties might want to seek out amici like the Medical Board of California.

MEDICINE FROM AFAR

Telemedicine refers to the delivery of medicine from afar, and it can occur in many ways. The broad term might refer to two doctors discussing a case over the phone or the Internet, for example. Or it might involve direct patient interaction with physicians located far away.

The American Telemedicine Association doesn't keep hard statistics on how many doctors incorporate telemedicine into their practice, but California state law requires medical practitioners to conduct a good-faith exam before prescribing medication. The California Medical Association (CMA) declined to weigh in with an amicus brief on Hageseth's behalf, because of the lack of a good-faith exam.

ROUTING THE ORDER

McKay was connected with Hageseth in June 2005 through an overseas Web site called Usanetrx.com, an Internet portal registered in India, offering access to discount prescription drugs. After transmitting his credit card number and some details about his medical history, McKay placed an order for fluoxetine, a generic alternative to Prozac.

The order was then routed through JRB Health Solutions, a Florida company with which Hageseth worked to prescribe medication. A Mississippi pharmacy used by JRB then filled McKay's order and shipped the meds directly to him.

A few weeks later, after McKay committed suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning, alcohol and fluoxetine were detected in his bloodstream.

Last year, McKay's parents sued Hageseth, JRB Health Solutions and the Mississippi pharmacy, among others, in California's Northern District federal court. That case is still pending. But so far Hageseth is the only defendant who's faced criminal prosecution, though his doctor argues that the state's licensing requirements don't apply to Hageseth because he never set foot in California while acting as McKay's doctor.

In court papers, Hageseth claims the teenager wrote in his questionnaire that he had been prescribed anti-depressants before, and that he neglected to mention his alcohol use. But prosecutors counter that this argument is a gratuitous attack on the victim, not to mention irrelevant because the doctor did nothing to verify McKay's claims.

Hageseth surrendered his Colorado license after medical officials here contacted him about McKay. “Hageseth doesn't take the position that what he did is right. He takes the position that he did not commit a crime," said his California attorney.

Posted by Linda Chalat at 02:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The insurance industry determined that General Motors' vehicles had the highest and lowest death rates in the period between 2002 and 2005. According to their study, the vehicles with the highest death rate were the 2001 to 2004 Chevrolet Blazers and the Chevrolet Astro minivan was recorded to have the lowest rate. Researchers also reported that the average death rate for all vehicles has declined.

Posted by Linda Chalat at 02:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The non-profit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen last month issued a report ranking Medicaid programs by how well they provide adequate medical services to low-income populations. Fifty-five million, mostly low-income Americans get their health care coverage through their state Medicaid program. The report considers federal mandates in four categories: eligibility, scope of services, quality of care and provider reimbursement.

The worst Medicaid programs in the country, according to Public Citizen, are those in Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

Massachusetts had the top-ranked Medicaid program in the country, followed by Nebraska, Vermont, Alaska and Wisconsin. But being the best doesn’t mean Massachusetts has any reason to boast, having received only a score of 65 out of 100.

States are revamping their Medicaid programs in reaction to health care costs increasing at double the rate of inflation while the number of uninsured Americans, at last count 43 million, is forcing states to find ways to cover more people.

For Medicaid patients, where you live makes all the difference. Public Citizen ranked states by the optional health care services that states provide beyond legally mandated services. People living in Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Washington have the most health care options on Medicaid, the report found. But residents of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Wyoming have the least. In Kentucky and West Virginia, Medicaid programs are being modified to cover more people, such as pregnant women and children, but eligibility requirements and costs, such as higher co-payments, are being implemented to offset the expansions.

Posted by Linda Chalat at 02:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Colorado Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against the city of Aurora over its pit-bull ban. An Aurora home-owner brought the suit against the city in Arapahoe County District Court, saying that her constitutional rights were violated by the ban. The Aurora City Council imposed the ban on new pit bulls in February 2006. But it did allow all current owners at that time to keep their dogs if they obtained $200 annual licenses and adhered to a number of requirements.

Those requirements included implanting the dogs with a chip allowing them to be identified, providing the dogs with secured backyard enclosures and posting warning signs on front doors.

The dog-lover had asked for the appeal after a judge dismissed the case because the court did not receive a response she was later found to have sent. The dismissal was promptly vacated. But last week, the Court of Appeals found that she did not prove her case.

Denver also has a pit-bull ban, and has prevailed when residents have tried to challenge it in civil court. Across Colorado in the past twelve months, at least four people have been attacked by pit bulls, including two police officers, and several dogs killed.

Posted by Linda Chalat at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)