(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no action alleging negligence, breach of contract, lack of informed consent, or other action arising in tort or contract to recover damages from any health care institution, as defined in paragraph A. of subsection (2) of this section, or any health care professional, as defined in paragraph B. of subsection (2) of this section, shall be maintained unless such action is instituted within two years after the date that such action accrues pursuant to section 13-80-108(1), but in no event shall an action be brought more than three years after the act or omission which gave rise to the action.
(2) For the purposes of this section:
A. "Health care institution" means any hospital, health care facility, dispensary, clinic, or other institution which is licensed or certified as such under the laws of this state.
B. "Health care professional" means any physician, nurse, dentist, chiropractor, pharmacist, optometrist, psychologist, podiatrist, physical therapist, or other health care practitioner who is licensed to perform such profession under the laws of this state.
(3) The limitation of actions provided in subsection (1) of this section shall not apply under the following circumstances:
A. If the act or omission which gave rise to the cause of action was knowingly concealed by the person committing such act or omission, in which case the action may be maintained if instituted within two years after the person bringing the action discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence and concern should have discovered, the act or omission; or
B. If the act or omission consisted of leaving an unauthorized foreign object in the body of the patient, in which case the action may be maintained if instituted within two years after the person bringing the action discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence and concern should have discovered, the act or omission; or
C. If both the physical injury and its cause are not known or could not have been known by the exercise of reasonable diligence; or
Mastro v. Brodie, 682 P.2d 1162 (Colo. 1984). (Statute begins to run when the claimant learns of facts that would put a reasonable person on notice of the nature and extent of an injury and that the injury was caused by the wrongful conduct of another. When the patient became aware that the physician should have warned her of the risk of severe scarring prior to undergoing surgery became an issue, since she was a member of a high risk class who tended to develop keloids.)
Licano v. Krausnick, 663 P.2d 1066 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). (Under an amendment of the statute of limitations providing that an action by a minor who is injured before he is six must be brought within two years after reaching the age of six, and allowing an additional year for causes of action already in existence at the time of the amendment, an action brought more than one year later is barred.)
Brodie v. Mastro, 638 P.2d 800 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981), aff'd 682 P.2d 1162 (Colo. 1984). (Where the surgeon knowingly conceals from a young black female patient the fact that such persons are at greater risk of keloid scarring than lighter-skinned persons, the running of the statute is tolled.)