Utah Supreme Court

Can unlicensed physicians conduct examinations in Utah for expert testimony? Allred v. AC&S Explained

2007 UT 66
No. 20050829
August 24, 2007
Reversed

Summary

This asbestos litigation case involved thirty-seven consolidated cases challenging the district court’s exclusion of an out-of-state medical expert. The court held that Dr. Schonfeld, an unlicensed physician, could conduct examinations in Utah to prepare for expert testimony without violating state medical practice laws.

Analysis

In Allred v. AC&S, Inc., the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether an out-of-state physician could conduct medical examinations in Utah without violating state licensing laws. This consolidated asbestos litigation case involved thirty-seven separate cases challenging the exclusion of a medical expert witness.

Background and Facts: Dr. Schonfeld, a physician not licensed to practice medicine in Utah, conducted physical examinations of plaintiffs in Utah as part of his preparation to testify as an expert witness in asbestos litigation. The district court found Dr. Schonfeld unreliable as an expert witness and unavailable to testify, concluding that his examinations violated the Utah Medical Practice Act.

Key Legal Issues: The central question was whether the Utah Medical Practice Act prohibited an unlicensed physician from conducting physical examinations in Utah for purposes of expert testimony preparation. This issue had significant implications for the availability of out-of-state medical experts in Utah litigation.

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment, holding that Dr. Schonfeld did not violate the Utah Medical Practice Act when he conducted examinations for litigation preparation purposes. The court determined that such examinations fell within permissible activities for unlicensed physicians when done specifically for expert testimony preparation rather than for treatment or diagnosis.

Practice Implications: This decision provides important guidance for practitioners utilizing out-of-state medical experts. Attorneys can confidently arrange for unlicensed physicians to conduct examinations in Utah when those examinations are specifically for expert testimony preparation. However, practitioners should ensure the examinations are clearly documented as litigation-related activities rather than medical treatment to maintain compliance with the Medical Practice Act.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Allred v. AC&S

Citation

2007 UT 66

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 20050829

Date Decided

August 24, 2007

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A physician unlicensed in Utah may conduct physical examinations in Utah for purposes of expert testimony preparation without violating the Utah Medical Practice Act.

Standard of Review

Correctness (summary judgment)

Practice Tip

When using out-of-state medical experts, ensure their examination activities fall within the litigation preparation exception to medical practice licensing requirements.

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. Norris

    January 19, 2007

    Utah Code section 76-10-1801 (communications fraud statute) is neither unconstitutionally overbroad nor vague, and district courts have jurisdiction to accept felony charges even when related misdemeanor appeals are pending.
    • Constitutional Rights
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Suazo v. Salt Lake City

    August 23, 2007

    A plaintiff must strictly comply with the Governmental Immunity Act’s notice requirements, and reliance on outdated database information does not excuse improper service under section 63-30d-401(7) when the database was updated before the notice was served.
    • Administrative Appeals
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    • |
    • 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.