Cosmetic Eye Surgery Malpractice in Colorado

An elective eye procedure is supposed to make life easier. LASIK, PRK, lens replacement, and the newer cosmetic procedures that change eye color are usually planned weeks ahead, paid for out of pocket, and preceded by a long consent form. When one goes wrong — lasting vision loss, chronic pain, a complication that does not resolve — the natural question is whether there is a case.

In Colorado, the honest answer turns on two things that have little to do with how frustrated anyone is. The first is whether the care fell below the professional standard. The second is whether the harm is serious enough to justify an expensive lawsuit. Our firm has investigated a number of these claims and has filed one malpractice suit. This is how we look at them, including the risks we explain before anyone signs anything.

Colorado Malpractice Claims Turn on the Standard of Care, Not the Consent Form

Colorado malpractice claims ask whether a physician's conduct fell below the professional standard of care, and a signed consent form does not answer that question. Elective and cosmetic patients sign detailed forms that list complications. Those forms matter, because they show which risks were disclosed.

But disclosure of a risk is not permission to perform the procedure carelessly. The consent form is one piece of the file. What we are looking for is conduct that fell below the professional standard of care. A known complication can occur even when everything was done right, and that alone is not malpractice. Whether the care met the standard is a medical question. In a case against a physician, C.R.S. § 13-64-401 allows only a licensed physician who is substantially familiar with the applicable standard to testify about it.

How Conduit Investigates a Bad Surgical Outcome

Every Conduit malpractice investigation starts with the complete set of pre- and post-procedure records. We want the full universe: the evaluation before surgery, the procedure itself, and everything that happened afterward. A partial file produces a partial answer, and in a case this expensive a partial answer is not good enough.

Once the records are in, two reviews run side by side. At least one qualified expert reviews the care before any suit is filed. At the same time, we review damages, quite frankly, because the strength of the medical case and the size of the harm both have to be there. Either one alone is not enough.

1. Records. Every pre- and post-procedure record, from every provider involved.
2. Expert review. At least one qualified physician reviews whether the care met the standard.
3. Damages review. We assess whether the harm is large enough to justify the cost and risk of litigation.
4. Decision. File, refer the case to trusted medical-negligence counsel, or close the inquiry with a straight answer.

The Certificate of Review: An Expert Opinion Within 60 Days of Service

C.R.S. § 13-20-602 requires the plaintiff's attorney to file a certificate of review within 60 days after serving a complaint against a licensed professional, unless the court extends the deadline for good cause. In the certificate, the attorney declares that a qualified expert reviewed the known facts and concluded that the claim does not lack substantial justification (§ 13-20-602(3)(a)).

In a case against a physician, the certificate must state that the consultant meets the expert qualifications of § 13-64-401 (§ 13-20-602(3)(c)). That means a licensed physician substantially familiar with the standard of care for the condition at issue, and generally one whose subspecialty matches or follows similar standards. A certificate is also required for a clinic or practice that employed the professional, even if the professional is not named (§ 13-20-602(1)(b)). Failure to file one results in dismissal (§ 13-20-602(4)). That is why our expert review happens before filing, not after.

Colorado's Malpractice Damages Caps for 2026 and Beyond

Colorado's Health Care Availability Act, C.R.S. § 13-64-302, limits the damages recoverable from health-care professionals and institutions. The 2024 amendments in House Bill 24-1472 raise those limits each year through 2029. The cap that applies depends on when the act or omission occurred.

Date of the act or omission	Noneconomic damages cap	Total damages cap
2026	$530,000	$1,012,500
2027	$645,000	$1,331,250
2028	$760,000	$1,650,000
2029	$875,000	$1,968,750
2030 and later	Adjusted for inflation every two years

Source: C.R.S. § 13-64-302(1)(b)–(c). The total cap is the greater of $1,000,000 or 125% of the wrongful-death noneconomic limit in C.R.S. § 13-21-203(1)(b) for the same year. Different rules apply to public providers covered by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act.

Two details shape how these caps work in a real case. First, the statute counts physical impairment and disfigurement as noneconomic loss, so those damages fall inside the noneconomic cap (§ 13-64-302(1)(a)(II)(A)). The statute does protect the economic damages that result from impairment or disfigurement (§ 13-64-302(1)(a)(II)(B)). Second, a court may award economic damages above the total cap only if it finds good cause and that applying the cap would be unfair (§ 13-64-302(1)(b)). Under the statute, any recovery above the total cap is limited to economic damages, such as lost earning capacity or the cost of future care.

The statute also bars telling the jury the caps exist. A verdict can exceed them and then be reduced afterward.

Why These Cases Cost $100,000 or More and Can Take Years

More experienced medical malpractice counsel in our network put the cost of taking an average malpractice case through litigation at roughly $100,000 to $150,000. In a contingency case, those costs are typically advanced by the firm and repaid from any recovery, along with any medical liens and reimbursement claims. Our breakdown of how much of a personal injury settlement you actually keep walks through that math, and our guide to Colorado hospital liens explains how medical bills get paid back.

Time is the other cost. Large verdicts, when they happen, can be tied up on appeal for years.

Colorado's Deadline: Two Years, With a Three-Year Outer Limit

Under C.R.S. § 13-80-102.5(1), a malpractice action against a Colorado health-care professional or institution generally must be filed within two years after the claim accrues, and in no event more than three years after the act or omission. The statute has exceptions, including knowing concealment, a foreign object left in the body, an injury and cause that could not have been known with reasonable diligence, young children, and persons under a legal disability (§ 13-80-102.5(3)).

Because records collection and expert review take time, an inquiry that starts close to the deadline leaves little room to do the work properly. Deadlines depend on the facts of each case, so confirm yours with a licensed Colorado attorney. If a public hospital or public employee was involved, separate notice requirements may apply; our Colorado injury case timeline covers the 182-day notice rule for public entities.

When a Case Isn't the Right Fit for Conduit

Conduit refers malpractice inquiries that may have merit but fall outside our focus to trusted Colorado counsel who concentrate on medical negligence. When a matter does not fit our practice at all, we point people to the Colorado Bar Association's lawyer referral resources. Either way, we try to give a clear answer quickly, so the deadline is not spent waiting on us.

A bad outcome after elective surgery is hard to live with, whether or not it becomes a lawsuit. Our aim is to give everyone who calls a straight explanation of where their situation stands.

Frequently Asked Questions

This article is general information about Colorado law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Deadlines and damages limits depend on the facts of each case and may change; confirm them with a licensed Colorado attorney. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Elliot Singer, Esq.
Conduit Law, LLC