Utah Supreme Court

Can out-of-state physicians examine patients in Utah for expert testimony purposes? Williams v. Atlas Explained

2007 UT 68
No. 20050817
August 24, 2007
Reversed

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court consolidated six cases involving medical expert testimony challenges. The district court granted summary judgment after finding that Dr. Schonfeld, an out-of-state physician, was unreliable as an expert witness because his physical examinations of Utah plaintiffs allegedly violated the Utah Medical Practice Act.

Analysis

Background and Facts

In Williams v. Atlas, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether an out-of-state physician violates the Utah Medical Practice Act when conducting physical examinations in Utah for litigation purposes. The case was consolidated with five other related matters sharing identical facts and legal issues. The district court had granted summary judgment against plaintiffs, ruling that Dr. Schonfeld, a physician not licensed to practice medicine in Utah, was unreliable as an expert witness because his physical examinations of Utah plaintiffs allegedly violated state medical licensing laws.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether the Utah Medical Practice Act prohibits unlicensed out-of-state physicians from conducting physical examinations of Utah residents when those examinations are performed solely to prepare expert testimony for litigation. The trial court concluded that such examinations constituted unauthorized practice of medicine, rendering Dr. Schonfeld’s testimony inadmissible and unreliable.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that Dr. Schonfeld did not violate the Utah Medical Practice Act when he conducted physical examinations as preparation for expert testimony. The Court distinguished between examinations conducted for treatment purposes versus those performed solely for litigation preparation. The opinion referenced the companion case Carbaugh v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. for detailed analysis of the underlying facts and legal principles.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for Utah practitioners utilizing out-of-state medical experts. Attorneys can confidently engage unlicensed physicians to conduct examinations for expert witness preparation without violating medical licensing requirements. However, practitioners should clearly document the litigation-specific purpose of such examinations to distinguish them from treatment-oriented medical practice. The ruling ensures that parties maintain access to qualified expert witnesses regardless of their Utah licensing status when examinations serve purely testimonial rather than therapeutic purposes.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Williams v. Atlas

Citation

2007 UT 68

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 20050817

Date Decided

August 24, 2007

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A physician unlicensed to practice in Utah does not violate the Utah Medical Practice Act when conducting physical examinations in Utah solely to prepare for expert testimony at trial.

Standard of Review

Correctness (summary judgment)

Practice Tip

When using out-of-state medical experts, clearly document that any examinations are conducted solely for litigation preparation rather than treatment to avoid Medical Practice Act challenges.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Supreme Court

    State v. Sevastopoulos

    December 23, 2021

    Litigation expenses incurred in third-party litigation necessitated by a defendant’s criminal conduct qualify as recoverable pecuniary damages under the Crime Victims Restitution Act.
    • Damages
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    State v. Featherston

    May 7, 2026

    Utah’s general savings statute precludes adoption of the common law amelioration doctrine because a criminal penalty is incurred at sentencing and cannot be affected by subsequent ameliorative amendments.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Criminal Appeals
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.