Court case Kilpatrick decided March 12, 2015

A recent court case was issued on March 12, 2015. In Kilpatrick the claimant sought to reopen a closed case based on new evidence. As part of his efforts claimant sought discovery of the insurers financial records of monetary gifts to any

Division or hearing office personnel including judges. This was denied as over-burdensome and became part of the appeal by claimant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision yet it concluded that all judges are subject to such disclosures despite the fact that no regulations have been set up on this. It concluded the claimants remedy is with the Division or hearing office not the court in denying claimants assertion of a denial of equal protection of the law. I question this conclusion when the claimant is denied disclosures by administrative inaction. Still unless this is appealed the Kilpatrick case does limit discovery. Every party truly may need discovery to ascertain the issues, the witnesses and the evidence. To me this includes any monetary favors provided to a judge. While bribery is unlikely and most judges are highly ethical I do believe such matters should be fully disclosed. Next, the claimant argued that the doctor rescinded his opinion that the claimant needed no further treatment with a new opinion based on new evidence. However the hearing judge decided that the case should not be reopened. The judge did not accept the doctors change of opinion. The judge believed the change was equivocal and not enough to justify reopening. Certainly a judge can weigh the evidence and absent an abuse of his discretion a judge's determination cannot be set aside. I disagree with this and would assert an outright rescinding should not be considered equivocal. Still you are encouraged to read the case yourself for all the details. There were other concerns but none to permit a favorable decision for the claimant. In this case the claimant lost his appeal unless he can get the Colorado Supreme Court to look at it.