Utah Court of Appeals
Can medical malpractice damages be too speculative for jury consideration? Sohm v. Dixie Eye Center Explained
Summary
An 84-year-old glaucoma patient sued her eye doctors for medical malpractice after becoming legally blind despite years of treatment. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding sufficient evidence of proximate cause but ruling that the plaintiff’s expert failed to precisely quantify damages caused by defendants’ negligence.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Sohm v. Dixie Eye Center, an 84-year-old plaintiff with glaucoma sued her ophthalmologist and optometrist for medical malpractice. Despite being under defendants’ care from 1995 to 2001, plaintiff’s intraocular pressures remained dangerously elevated, eventually reaching sixty in one eye. When plaintiff finally consulted a glaucoma specialist, he characterized her condition as “emergent” and performed emergency surgery. Plaintiff ultimately became legally blind in her right eye and lost significant vision in her left eye.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether plaintiff’s expert testimony was sufficient to defeat summary judgment on damages. The trial court found adequate evidence of proximate cause but ruled that the expert failed to precisely quantify what damages resulted from defendants’ negligence versus the natural progression of plaintiff’s condition.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, emphasizing that damages are questions of fact within the jury’s province. The court noted that a finding of proximate cause necessarily includes a finding of identifiable injury. While plaintiff’s expert could not specify exactly how much vision loss resulted from defendants’ negligence, he testified that defendants’ conduct was responsible for “significant loss of vision” and that plaintiff’s “vision would be significantly better” absent the negligence. The court held that proof of damages need not be “mathematically certain” when evidence supports proximate cause.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that once proximate cause is established in medical malpractice cases, defendants cannot escape liability merely because damages cannot be proved with precision. Practitioners should focus expert testimony on establishing that defendants’ negligence contributed to the plaintiff’s condition and that the outcome would have been better with proper care, rather than attempting to quantify exact percentages of harm.
Case Details
Case Name
Sohm v. Dixie Eye Center
Citation
2007 UT App 235
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20060274-CA
Date Decided
July 6, 2007
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A trial court cannot grant summary judgment on damages when it has already found sufficient evidence of proximate cause, as damages are questions of fact for jury determination and need not be proved with mathematical precision.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law involving summary judgment
Practice Tip
When opposing summary judgment in medical malpractice cases, emphasize that damages need not be proved with mathematical certainty if expert testimony establishes proximate cause and identifiable injury.
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.