## Facts

- A.T., a self-employed chiropractor, was injured in an automobile accident and sought benefits under her State Farm auto policy.
- The benefits dispute proceeded to arbitration under the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act.
- To support her claim in arbitration, A.T. produced medical records, including mental-health and psychological records reflecting a diagnosed psychological disorder.
- The arbitration resulted in an award in A.T.’s favor.
- In separate litigation between one of A.T.’s chiropractic patients and State Farm, A.T. testified as an expert witness.
- During cross-examination in that later case, State Farm used A.T.’s medical information obtained from the earlier arbitration to challenge her testimony.
- A.T. sued State Farm, alleging improper disclosure and use of confidential medical and psychological information under multiple liability theories.

## Issues

1. Whether State Farm owed A.T. a contractual, statutory, arbitration-based, or tort duty that barred it from later using medical records A.T. had produced in arbitration.
2. Whether summary judgment for State Farm was proper where the material facts about acquisition and use of the records were not disputed.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying A.T. leave to amend her complaint.

## Decision

- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held State Farm’s later use of the records did not violate any enforceable confidentiality obligation under the theories pleaded.
- The court held A.T.’s voluntary production of the records in arbitration waived any applicable privilege as to those records at least against State Farm.
- The court concluded the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act did not impose a general confidentiality rule restricting later use of documents produced in arbitration.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for State Farm and affirmed denial of leave to amend.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence or documents produced in arbitration are not automatically protected from later use in litigation absent an express confidentiality agreement or specific statutory restriction.
- Voluntary disclosure of medical or psychological records to support an insurance claim or arbitration may waive physician-patient or related privileges as to the disclosed records against the recipient.
- An insurer’s lawful receipt of medical information in claim resolution does not, without a specific legal source, create a broad duty prohibiting later use of that information in related litigation.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where material facts are undisputed and the plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law due to the absence of a duty, enforceable confidentiality restriction, or unwaived privilege.
- Denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion and may be affirmed where the proposed amendment would not cure the action’s legal deficiencies.

## Conclusion

The court held that State Farm’s use, in later litigation, of A.T.’s medical and psychological records previously produced in arbitration was not actionable because no agreement, statute, or unwaived privilege barred that use; it therefore affirmed summary judgment for State Farm and the denial of A.T.’s motion to amend.


A.T. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 989 P.2d 219 (Colo. App. 1999)