Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-64-203 (2026)

Periodic payments

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) In any civil action for damages in tort brought against a health-care professional or a health-care institution, the trial judge shall enter a judgment ordering that awards for future damages be paid by periodic payments rather than by a lump-sum payment if the award for future damages exceeds the present value of one hundred fifty thousand dollars, as determined by the court.

(2) In any such action in which the award for future damages is one hundred fifty thousand dollars or less, present value, the trial judge may order that awards for future damages be paid by periodic payments.

Source: L. 88: Entire article added, p. 614, § 1, effective July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1992–2020 · leading case: Garhart Ex Rel. Tinsman v. Columbia/HealthOne, L.L.C., 95 P.3d 571 (Colo. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Garhart Ex Rel. Tinsman v. Columbia/HealthOne, L.L.C., 95 P.3d 571 (Colo. 2004). · cites it 3× “Further, section 13-64-203 addresses periodic payments in detail: (1) In any civil action for damages in tort brought against a health care professional or a health care institution, the trial judge shall enter a judgment ordering that awards for future damages be paid by…”
Preston v. Dupont, 35 P.3d 433 (Colo. 2001). “See § 13-64-203, 5 C.R.S. (2001). However, the 204 required findings also explicitly state that the trier of fact will make "other appropriate findings" in addition to the specific findings required by section 13-64-204.”
Mumford v. Hughes, 852 P.2d 1289 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “Section 13-64-203, C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.”
Rodriguez Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Healthone, 24 P.3d 9 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “Here, § 13-64-203 provides that a judge may require an insurer to pay a judgment for future damages in periodic payments.”
Stokes v. United States (10th Cir. 2020). “in periodic payments”). Contrary to the Stokes’s argument, however, this distinction does not make § 9.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.