Utah Supreme Court
Can out-of-state physicians examine patients in Utah for expert testimony? Johnson v. Atlas Turner, Inc. Explained
Summary
Plaintiffs appealed a district court’s grant of summary judgment after the court found their medical expert, Dr. Schonfeld, was unreliable and unavailable to testify because he was not licensed to practice medicine in Utah. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that Dr. Schonfeld’s physical examinations of plaintiffs in Utah for trial preparation purposes did not violate the Utah Medical Practice Act.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Johnson v. Atlas Turner, Inc., the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether an out-of-state physician violated Utah’s Medical Practice Act when conducting physical examinations of plaintiffs in Utah as part of trial preparation. The district court had granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs after finding that their medical expert, Dr. Schonfeld, was unreliable and unavailable to testify because he was not licensed to practice medicine in Utah.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Dr. Schonfeld’s physical examinations of Utah plaintiffs constituted the practice of medicine under the Utah Medical Practice Act, which would require a Utah medical license. The court needed to determine the scope of activities that fall within trial preparation versus the regulated practice of medicine.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court held that Dr. Schonfeld did not violate the Utah Medical Practice Act when he conducted physical examinations as part of his preparations to testify at trial. The court distinguished between examinations conducted for treatment purposes and those conducted solely for expert witness preparation. The court found that the district court erred in determining Dr. Schonfeld was unreliable as an expert witness based on licensing concerns.
Practice Implications
This decision provides important guidance for practitioners using out-of-state medical experts. Attorneys can now rely on out-of-state physicians to conduct necessary examinations for expert testimony preparation without facing challenges based on Utah medical licensing requirements. However, practitioners should carefully document that such examinations are solely for litigation purposes and not for treatment or diagnosis. The ruling clarifies the boundaries between regulated medical practice and permissible expert witness activities, providing greater flexibility in expert selection while maintaining appropriate professional standards.
Case Details
Case Name
Johnson v. Atlas Turner, Inc.
Citation
2007 UT 67
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20050858
Date Decided
August 24, 2007
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A physician not licensed to practice medicine in Utah does not violate the Utah Medical Practice Act when conducting physical examinations of plaintiffs in Utah as part of preparations to testify at trial as an expert witness.
Standard of Review
Not specified in this opinion
Practice Tip
When using out-of-state medical experts, ensure their examination activities fall within the scope of trial preparation rather than the practice of medicine to avoid licensing 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
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.