Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 42
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-2-112 (2024)

Medical advice - use by department - provider immunity

✓ C.R.S. 2024: the 2025 and 2026 sessions are not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) In order to determine whether any licensed driver or any applicant for a driver's license is physically or mentally able to operate a motor vehicle safely upon the highways of this state, the department is authorized, pursuant to this section and upon the adoption of rules concerning medical criteria for driver licensing, to seek and receive a written medical opinion from any physician, physician assistant, or optometrist licensed in this state. Such written medical opinion may also be used by the department in regard to the renewal, suspension, revocation, or cancellation of drivers' licenses pursuant to this article. No written medical opinion shall be sought pursuant to this section unless the department has reason to believe that the driver or applicant is physically or mentally unable to operate a motor vehicle safely upon the highways of this state.

(2) In addition to the written medical opinion sought and received pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the department may consider a written medical opinion received from the personal physician, physician assistant, or optometrist of an individual driver or applicant. Any written medical opinion requested by the applicant or driver from a personal physician, physician assistant, or optometrist shall be provided to the department at the expense of the applicant or driver. Any written medical opinion required by the department shall also be at the expense of the applicant or driver.

(3) No civil or criminal action shall be brought against any physician, physician assistant, or optometrist licensed to practice in this state for providing a written medical or optometric opinion pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) of this section if the physician, physician assistant, or optometrist acts in good faith and without malice.

(4) A written medical opinion received by the department which relates to an individual applicant or driver is for the confidential use of the department in making decisions on the individual's qualifications as a driver, and the written medical opinion shall not be divulged to any person, except to the applicant or driver, or used in evidence in any trial or proceeding except in matters concerning the individual's qualifications to receive or retain a driver's license.

(5) Written medical opinions received by the department pursuant to this section, in addition to other sources of information, may be used by the department in the adoption of administrative rules concerning medical criteria for driver licensing.

Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2122, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2005: Entire section amended, p. 643, § 6, effective May 27. L. 2016: (1), (2), and (3) amended, (SB 16-158), ch. 204, p. 731, § 25, effective August 10.

Editor's note: (1) This section is similar to former § 42-2-110.5 as it existed prior to 1994, and the former § 42-2-112 was relocated to § 42-2-114.

(2) Although the amending clause to section 6 of Senate Bill 05-047 stated that all of § 42-2-112 was amended, only subsections (1), (2), and (3) of this section were amended and appeared in the bill.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration in SB 16-158, see section 1 of chapter 204, Session Laws of Colorado 2016.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1979–1986 · leading case: Johnson v. Motor Veh. Div., 593 P.2d 1363 (Colo. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. Motor Veh. Div., 593 P.2d 1363 (Colo. 1979). · cites it 3× “The General Assembly, with an eye to the key role played by the driver’s license in today’s society, has endeavored to protect those who rely on the identification provided by a driver’s license by exempting them from liability in section 42-2-112(5), C.R.S. 1973, in these…”
Dennis v. Charnes, 571 F. Supp. 462 (D. Colo. 1983). · cites it 2× “Dennis, whose religious affiliation is with the Assembly of YHWHHOSHUA, believes that the Bible prohibits his being photographed. In his view this would constitute creating a graven image, thus violating a Biblical injunction.”
Dennis v. Charnes, 646 F. Supp. 158 (D. Colo. 1986). · cites it 4× “The defendants contend that the applicable statute, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 42-2-112 (1973), forbids their issuing a driver’s license unless the plaintiff submits to a photograph and the photograph is made part of his license.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-2-112(1): 2 cases
Dennis v. Charnes, 571 F. Supp. 462 (D. Colo. 1983). “Dennis, whose religious affiliation is with the Assembly of YHWHHOSHUA, believes that the Bible prohibits his being photographed. In his view this would constitute creating a graven image, thus violating a Biblical injunction.”
Dennis v. Charnes, 646 F. Supp. 158 (D. Colo. 1986). “The defendants contend that the applicable statute, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 42-2-112 (1973), forbids their issuing a driver’s license unless the plaintiff submits to a photograph and the photograph is made part of his license.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-2-112(5): 1 case
Johnson v. Motor Veh. Div., 593 P.2d 1363 (Colo. 1979). “The General Assembly, with an eye to the key role played by the driver’s license in today’s society, has endeavored to protect those who rely on the identification provided by a driver’s license by exempting them from liability in section 42-2-112(5), C.R.S. 1973, in these…”
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.