Utah Supreme Court

Can out-of-state physicians examine patients in Utah for expert testimony? Johnson v. Atlas Turner, Inc. Explained

2007 UT 67
No. 20050858
August 24, 2007
Reversed

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.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

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

    • Utah Supreme Court

    Bradshaw v. Wilkinson Water Company

    May 4, 2004

    The Public Service Commission may require real estate developers to bear a proportionate share of utility infrastructure expansion costs necessary to serve proposed subdivisions.
    • Administrative Appeals
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Arnell v. Salt Lake County

    April 7, 2005

    A regulatory takings claim is ripe for judicial review when the government makes clear through its findings that no variance would be granted under any circumstances, making further procedural steps futile.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Land Use and Zoning
    • |
    • Property Rights
    • |
    • 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.