City of Manassa and Pinnacol Assurance, Petitioners/cross-Respondents v. Dale Ruff, Respondent/cross-Petitioner And…

Summary

The court held that the independent medical examiner's financial and contractual relationships with Pinnacol Assurance did not create an apparent or actual conflict under Rule 11-2(H), so the court of appeals erred in remanding for reconsideration. It also held that due process did not require the examiner to disclose those relationships or disqualify himself because the relationships posed too remote and insubstantial a risk of actual bias or prejudgment. Justice MARTINEZ, joined by Justice BENDER, dissenting, would have affirmed the remand because the examiner's substantial financial relationship with Pinnacol created an apparent conflict requiring objective consideration.