When is expert testimony required in medical abandonment cases? Newman v. Sonnenberg Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in Newman v. Sonnenberg clarified when expert testimony is necessary to prove medical abandonment claims, establishing important requirements for practitioners pursuing such cases.

Background and Facts

Newman’s dentist referred her to endodontist Sonnenberg for a root canal. At Sonnenberg’s office, Newman signed an informed consent form, and Sonnenberg conducted examinations, x-rays, pulp tests, and administered local anesthetic. After determining Newman needed a root canal but learning she could not pay for the procedure, Sonnenberg refused to perform the treatment. Newman subsequently received a successful root canal from another endodontist one week later and sued Sonnenberg for abandonment under the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether expert testimony is required to prove medical abandonment, specifically to establish when “treatment” begins and triggers the duty not to abandon. Newman argued that the duty arose upon establishing the doctor-patient relationship, while Sonnenberg contended that no treatment had commenced.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court distinguished between the general duty of reasonable care arising from the doctor-patient relationship and the specific duty not to abandon, which requires that “treatment and services” have begun. Citing Ricks v. Budge, the court emphasized that abandonment liability only attaches after treatment commences. The court found that determining whether Sonnenberg’s diagnostic procedures constituted “treatment” required expert testimony because such medical determinations exceed common knowledge. Without expert testimony to establish when treatment began, Newman could not survive summary judgment.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that medical abandonment claims require expert witnesses to prove when treatment begins and the applicable standard of care for discontinuing services, unless the medical procedures are so common that they fall within lay understanding. Practitioners must carefully designate appropriate experts to establish these elements or risk summary judgment dismissal.