Minnesota man sues Colorado for end-of-life care access

A Minnesota man is suing Colorado for the ability to access medical aid in dying. However, he cannot access this care because he is not a Colorado resident.

“The law is discriminatory. Appropriate health care options should not be denied to someone based on their ZIP code,” said Jess Pezley, senior staff attorney with Compassion & Choices, an organization advocating “expanded options for compassionate dying.” “Firsthand experience from countless doctors and patients, and decades of data, make it clear that the residency restriction functions more as a barrier to access than as a safeguard.”

Woodbury resident Jeff McComas, 55, is a retired engineer. He has incurable and inoperable Stage IV intestinal cancer, which will eventually stop his body from processing food and will spread to other vital organs. His current prognosis is May 2026. McComas wishes to have the option of medical aid if his suffering becomes unbearable.

McComas seeks end-of-life care in Colorado. End-of-life assistance is not available in Minnesota. Legislation was introduced in April of this year, but nothing passed before the Legislature adjourned. However, McComas would like to have end-of-life care in Colorado because it reminds him of his home state of Minnesota.

Colorado voters passed Proposition 106, “Access to Medical Aid in Dying,” in 2016. It became the sixth state in the United States to permit a “qualified individual” to die peacefully by obtaining a prescription from their attending provider. However, a “qualified individual” is defined as “a resident of the state who is capable adult and who has satisfied the requirements of this article 48 in order to obtain a prescription for medication to bring about a death.”

Residents must have a Colorado driver’s license or identification card, voter registration card, property owned in Colorado, or a Colorado income tax return. One must reside in Colorado for 90 consecutive days.

But this creates barriers for out-of-state individuals seeking end-of-life care. McComas has health limitations that prevent him from traveling by plane. Other individuals die before waiting the 90 days.

This is the reason that McComas is bringing the suit now. “Mr. McComas does not want to—and, indeed, cannot—wait to start this legal process only after such an unfortunate eventuality as, a consequence of such delay, thereby lose any hope of timely accessing his desired end-of-life care,” the complaint reads.

The other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Colorado physicians Dr. Barbara Morris and Dr. Jennifer Harbert. Both physicians have assisted patients with end-of-life care. They would like to assist out-of-state patients who have contacted them, as well; however, they cannot do so without fear of breaking the law.

Plaintiffs assert that denying end-of-life care to nonresident patients is discriminatory, violating the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the definition of “qualified individual” and residency requirement in the law violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.

They also claim that the denial undermines Colorado’s status as a safe haven. Nonresidents and residents alike can seek reproductive health care and gender-affirming care, for instance.

“It is extremely burdensome and expensive to establish residency in a new state while terminally ill — no one should have to overcome that burden to access the health care that’s right for them,” said Liz Och, counsel at the law firm Hogan Lovells. “By enforcing this residency requirement, Colorado is imposing an unconstitutional barrier to medical care.” Hogan Lovells also represents the plaintiffs in this matter.

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office says that it does not comment on pending litigation.

In 1994, Oregon became the first state to legalize end-of-life care. Medical aid in dying is authorized in 11 states and Washington, D.C. On May 20, 2025, Delaware became the most recent state to legalize it.

Oregon and Vermont have removed residency requirements after litigation. In 2024, a New Jersey judge dismissed a constitutional challenge to New Jersey’s residency requirement in its medically assisted suicide law.

“Colorado has been a leader in protecting access to essential health care, including for out-of-state residents, and has shielded providers who offer that care from liability,” said Pezley. “We are simply asking Colorado to extend that same commitment to autonomy and compassion to terminally ill individuals who seek the option of medical aid in dying, and that same protection to the Colorado providers who care for them.”