last constitutional challenge alleges that the HCAA violates the right to due process of the laws. The argument appears to be that, because the HCAA imposes limits on potential damage awards, it inflicts a deprivation of property without a hearing. The constitutional guarantee of due process is applicable to rights, not remedies. Gibbes v. Zimmerman, 290 U.S. 326, 332, 54 S.Ct. 140, 142, 78 L.Ed. 342 (1933) (“[Although a vested cause of action is property and is protected from arbitrary interference, [appellants have] no property, in the constitutional sense, in any particular form of remedy; all that [they are] guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment is the preservation of [their] substantial rights to redress by some effective procedure.”) (citations omitted); DeFoor, 824 P.2d at 792 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the limitations on damage awards
recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct holding there is no right to a specific dollar remedy holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding that  1983 does not provide a remedy if there is no violation of federal law holding that there is no federal or colorado constitutional right to postconviction counsel but there is a limited statutory right