Can you sue an independent medical examiner for malpractice? Joseph v. McCann Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a matter of first impression in Joseph v. McCann, determining whether an independent medical examiner owes a duty of care to the person being examined. The court’s holding provides important guidance for practitioners handling cases involving third-party medical evaluations.

Background and Facts
Police officer Robert Joseph was required to undergo an independent medical evaluation (IME) by psychiatrist Dr. David McCann as part of his reinstatement process with Salt Lake City. McCann was retained by the City, not Joseph, to evaluate Joseph’s fitness for duty. McCann’s evaluation concluded that Joseph was not psychologically fit to serve as a police officer, leading to Joseph’s termination. Joseph subsequently sued McCann for medical malpractice, arguing that McCann’s evaluation was incompetent and erroneous.

Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether McCann owed a duty of care to Joseph sufficient to support a medical malpractice claim. This required determining whether a physician-patient relationship existed between McCann and Joseph during the IME process. The court noted this was a matter of first impression for Utah courts.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of McCann. The court held that no physician-patient relationship existed because: (1) Joseph did not seek treatment from McCann; (2) McCann was contracted by the City, not Joseph; and (3) the evaluation was for the City’s benefit, not Joseph’s medical care. The court distinguished the situation from traditional physician-patient relationships where individuals actively seek medical treatment. Despite a written statement referring to Joseph as a “patient,” the court found this was merely an improper label that did not create an actual physician-patient relationship.

Practice Implications
This decision aligns Utah with the majority of jurisdictions that reject duty of care claims against independent medical examiners. Practitioners should recognize that IME challenges typically cannot proceed under medical malpractice theories. Instead, consider alternative approaches such as procedural due process claims, employment law theories, or challenges to the adequacy of the examination process under relevant statutory frameworks.