Colo. Med. Soc'y v. Hickenlooper
| Decision Date | 01 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court Case No. 12SC671 |
| Citation | 349 P.3d 1133,2015 CO 41 |
| Parties | COLORADO MEDICAL SOCIETY, a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation, and the Colorado Society of Anesthesiologists, a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation, Petitioners v. John HICKENLOOPER, in his official capacity as the Governor of Colorado, Respondent and Colorado Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Colorado Nurses Association, and Colorado Hospital Association, Intervenors–Respondents |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Attorneys for Petitioner Colorado Medical Society: Martin Conklin P.C., John L. Conklin, Jerome R. Geraghty, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Petitioner Colorado Society of Anesthesiologists: Sherman & Howard L.L.C., Joseph J. Bronesky, Frederick Y. Yu, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondent: Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, LeeAnn Morrill, First Assistant Attorney General, Matthew David Grove, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Intervenor–Respondent Colorado Association of Nurse Anesthetists: Miles & Peters, P.C., Fred Miles, Peggy Kozal, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Intervenor–Respondent Colorado Nurses Association: Caplan and Earnest LLC, W. Stuart Stuller, Linda L. Siderius, Boulder, Colorado
Attorneys for Intervenor–Respondent Colorado Hospital Association: Polsinelli PC, Gerald Niederman, Bennett L. Cohen, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amici Curiae American Medical Association and American Society of Anesthesiologists, Gordon & Rees LLP, John R. Mann, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae American Hospital Association, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Christopher O. Murray, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amici Curiae American Association of Nurse Anesthetists and American Nurses Association, Duane Morris LLP, Mark J. Silberman, Elinor L. Hart, Chicago, Illinois
Husch Blackwell, LLP, Jeffrey D. Whitney, Denver, Colorado
En Banc
¶ 1 Under federal regulations, in order for hospitals, critical access hospitals, and ambulatory surgical centers to receive Medicare reimbursement, certified registered nurse anesthetists (“CRNAs”) who administer anesthesia must do so under a physician's supervision. A state may opt out of this requirement, however, if its governor attests to the appropriate federal agency that he has consulted with the state's medical and nursing boards and has concluded that opting out of the requirement would be consistent with state law and in the state's best interest.
¶ 2 In 2010, then-Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, Jr. consulted with the state's medical and nursing boards and concluded that opting out of the supervision requirement would be consistent with state law and would be in the state's best interest. He sent notice of his conclusions to the federal agency and exercised the opt-out as to all critical access hospitals in Colorado and certain rural general hospitals. The petitioners, the Colorado Medical Society and the Colorado Society of Anesthesiologists, filed suit against the Governor, claiming that Colorado law does not permit CRNAs to administer anesthesia without supervision by a physician.
¶ 3 The Governor and three intervening medical associations (collectively, “the respondents”) moved to dismiss the petitioners' complaint. Their motion argued that the petitioners lacked standing and that they failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In ruling on the motion, the trial court found that the petitioners had standing, but also determined that Colorado law does not require CRNAs to be supervised when they deliver anesthesia. The trial court therefore found that the petitioners failed to state a valid claim and granted the motion to dismiss. On review, the court of appeals agreed with the trial court's conclusions that the petitioners had standing but failed to state a claim for relief. Colo. Med. Soc'y v. Hickenlooper, 2012 COA 121, 353 P.3d 396. The petitioners now ask us to review the court of appeals' decision affirming the trial court's dismissal of their complaint.
¶ 4 We affirm the order of the court of appeals, but on different grounds. We agree that the petitioners have standing. However, we hold that, contrary to the assumption that has undergirded this case to this point, the Governor's attestation with regard to physician supervision of CRNAs is not a generally binding interpretation of Colorado law that is subject to de novo review. Instead, the attestation has a single effect—namely, to exempt Colorado's critical access hospitals, along with certain rural general hospitals in Colorado, from the federal supervision requirement. This decision, if reviewable at all, is reviewable only for a gross abuse of discretion. Because the petitioners do not allege that such a gross abuse occurred here, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals affirming dismissal of the petitioners' claims.
¶ 5 Federal regulations require hospitals, critical access hospitals, and ambulatory surgical centers to satisfy certain conditions in order to receive Medicare reimbursement. One such condition is that certified registered nurse anesthetists may administer anesthesia
only under the supervision of a physician. 42 C.F.R. §§ 482.52 (hospitals), 485.639 (critical access hospitals), 416.42 (2014) (ambulatory surgical centers). These same regulations, however, also permit a state to opt out of this requirement if the state's governor submits a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“the CMS”) requesting an exemption. 42 C.F.R. §§ 482.52(c)(1), 485.639(e)(1), 416.42(c)(1). In this letter, the governor “must attest that he or she has consulted with the State Boards of Medicine and Nursing about issues related to access to and the quality of anesthesia services in the State and has concluded that it is in the best interests of the State's citizens to opt-out of the current physician supervision requirement, and that the opt-out is consistent with State law. ” 42 C.F.R. §§ 482.52(c)(1), 485.639(e)(1), 416.42(c)(1) (emphasis added).
¶ 6 In 2010, then-Governor Bill Ritter, Jr. sent a one-page letter to the Colorado Medical Board and the Colorado Nursing Board (“the Boards”) informing them that it was his “understanding that the Colorado Nurse Practice Act [§ 12–38–101 to –133, C.R.S. (2014) ] allows CRNAs to practice without direct supervision from a physician.” His letter then told the Boards that he intended to utilize the opt-out option for Colorado's rural and critical access hospitals “unless [their] respective boards provide[d] compelling arguments against such action.” He therefore asked the Boards to address whether opting out of the supervision requirement would be consistent with state law and whether it would be in the best interest of Colorado residents. After considering the matter, the Boards responded to the Governor's questions, answering both of them in the affirmative.
¶ 7 Governor Ritter then sent a one-page letter to the CMS stating that he had consulted with the state's Medical and Nursing Boards and had determined that the opt-out was consistent with Colorado law and in the best interests of Colorado citizens. The letter then stated that Colorado would opt out of the supervision requirement for all critical access hospitals and thirteen specifically identified rural general hospitals. The Governor later added a fourteenth rural general hospital to the exemption.
¶ 8 On the day after Governor Ritter sent the opt-out letter to the CMS, the petitioners, acting on behalf of their physician and anesthesiologist members, initiated this action against him. In their complaint, they contend that the opt-out violates Colorado law, which they claim requires that CRNAs administer anesthesia only under a physician's supervision.
¶ 9 Governor Ritter then filed a motion to dismiss the petitioners' complaint under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and (5), arguing that the petitioners lacked standing and that their complaint failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The Colorado Hospital Association, Colorado Nurses Association, and Colorado Association of Nurse Anesthetists, who had intervened as defendants in the case, joined in the Governor's motion.1
¶ 10 In ruling on the motion, the trial court found that the petitioners had standing, but also determined that Colorado law does not prohibit the unsupervised delivery of anesthesia by a CRNA. The trial court therefore granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On review, the court of appeals agreed that the petitioners had standing to challenge the opt-out after concluding that they had alleged tangible injuries to their medical licenses and reputations. Colo. Med. Soc'y, ¶¶ 24–26. The court also agreed, however, that Colorado law does not require physicians to supervise CRNAs as they administer anesthesia. Id. at ¶¶ 32–50. The court of appeals therefore affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the action. Id. at ¶ 57. The court also rejected the argument raised by the intervenor-respondent Colorado Hospital Association that the Governor's decision was not subject to judicial review, concluding that the requirements of the political question doctrine were not met. Id. at ¶¶ 11–14. Judge Furman concurred specially, taking the position that the petitioners lacked standing because the Governor has the “sole discretion to determine whether the opt-out is ... consistent with Colorado law.”Id. at ¶ 73 (Furman, J., specially concurring)
¶ 11 The petitioners then petitioned this court for certiorari review of the court of appeals' decision.2
¶ 12 The Governor reprises his argument3 that the petitioners lack standing to challenge his decision, and although he did not file a cross-petition asking us to review the court of appeals' standing determination, we have an obligation to address the standing issue before proceeding to the merits. Hickenlooper v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 2014 CO...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Scott
...the claim which would entitle him [or her] to relief." Colo. Med. Soc'y v. Hickenlooper , 2012 COA 121, ¶ 29, 353 P.3d 396, aff'd , 2015 CO 41, 349 P.3d 1133. ¶ 19 In June 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court replaced that standard with the federal "plausibility" standard announced in Ashcroft ......
-
1405 Hotel, LLC v. Colo. Econ. Dev. Comm'n
...alleged failure to comply with the RTA.¶ 50 Our conclusion is consistent with the supreme court's recent decision in Colorado Medical Society v. Hickenlooper, 2015 CO 41, ¶ 1, 349 P.3d 1133, 1134, on which the Hotels rely. There, the supreme court considered whether the Colorado Medical Soc......