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

    Chase Manhattan Bank v. Principal Funding Corporation

    January 27, 2004

    An appellate court’s statement that it vacates a judgment is not self-executing unless the court specifically directs that no further action is required by the trial court upon remittitur.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Property Rights
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Lane

    May 23, 2019

    District courts must conduct a separate Rule 403 balancing analysis after determining prior act evidence is admissible under the doctrine of chances, and failure to do so constitutes an abuse of discretion.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    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.