Denver, CO — A state jury in Colorado has mandated NorGUARD Insurance Co., a subsidiary of investment giant Berkshire Hathaway, to pay a substantial $145 million settlement for not approving necessary medical treatments for a construction worker’s severe brain injury. This sum includes $60 million allocated for punitive damages, underscoring the court’s stance on the insurer’s conduct.
The case revolves around Fermin Salguero-Quijada, a 20-year-old painter, who suffered tragic injuries in a fall from a ladder in Salt Lake City, Utah, during his work for a Colorado-based company in September 2021. Following the incident, Salguero-Quijada was rushed to the University of Utah Hospital, where doctors diagnosed him with significant brain hemorrhages and subsequently placed him on life support.
Despite the critical nature of his condition, requiring specialized long-term care at Craig Rehabilitation Hospital, his transfer was stymied by NorGUARD, which initially denied liability for his workers’ compensation claim. The company’s refusal transferred the caregiving burden to his family, requiring them to manage his complex needs, which include constant supervision and assistance with everyday activities.
The legal battle intensified when NorGUARD ignored a judicial directive to cover the claim, appealing against the order and prolonging the payment process. This delay led to repeated denials of Salguero-Quijada’s necessary medical treatments, despite the urgency of his condition. In response, his family initiated a lawsuit against the insurer in November 2023.
The insurer argued that it had already paid $2.1 million for the worker’s medical expenses and it had intentions of dispensing lifetime benefits to Salguero-Quijada. Additionally, it stated that its hesitation was justified by conflicting medical opinions between the worker’s initial treatment providers and specialists at the Utah hospital.
However, the jury at the Denver District Court concluded on Wednesday that NorGUARD knowingly and unreasonably denied the workers’ compensation claim. Case details were not immediately accessible due to a widespread connectivity outage affecting the Colorado Judicial Branch’s website.
This case highlights a serious issue within the realm of workers’ compensation insurance — specifically, the tension between immediate patient needs and the operational protocols of insurance firms. Such disputes can significantly hinder the provision of timely medical care, potentially altering the trajectory of recovery for those affected.
As this legal decision resonates through the insurance and healthcare industries, it serves as a poignant reminder of the critical role that timely and fair handling of insurance claims plays in supporting injured workers. This case may also prompt other insurers to reconsider their protocols and practices surrounding claim disputes to avoid similar punitive judgments.
This article was compiled and automatically written by Open AI. The facts, people, circumstances, and other elements reported may not be accurate. For corrections, retractions, or to request article removal, please contact [email protected].