Must Utah courts allow tort reform questioning during voir dire in medical malpractice cases? Alcazar v. University of Utah Hospitals & Clinics Explained

In medical malpractice cases, determining whether potential jurors have been exposed to tort reform propaganda is not just helpful—it’s legally required. The Utah Court of Appeals’ decision in Alcazar v. University of Utah Hospitals & Clinics reinforces this critical principle and provides clear guidance for practitioners on proper voir dire procedures.

Background and Facts

Mr. Alcazar visited the University of Utah Emergency Department twice in one day complaining of chest pain. During his first visit, physicians diagnosed him with atypical chest pain and discharged him. When he returned hours later with worsening symptoms, blood tests revealed elevated cardiac enzymes, leading to successful treatment with a coronary stent. The Alcazars filed a medical malpractice lawsuit alleging negligence in the initial diagnosis.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to ask plaintiffs’ requested voir dire questions about potential jurors’ exposure to tort reform and medical malpractice information. The court had declined to ask specific questions about jurors’ knowledge of lawsuit crises, tort reform, or their attitudes toward medical malpractice litigation.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied the abuse of discretion standard and found reversible error. Relying heavily on Evans v. Doty and Barrett v. Peterson, the court emphasized that voir dire serves two purposes: uncovering biases for for-cause challenges and gathering information for intelligent use of peremptory challenges. The trial court’s single question about tort reform opinions was inadequate, especially when a panel member asked “What’s tort reform?” and received no meaningful response.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that trial courts must allow meaningful questioning about tort reform exposure in medical malpractice cases. The court noted that such questioning can be conducted efficiently through questionnaires, and that refusing to ask these questions substantially impairs counsel’s ability to exercise challenges effectively, constituting reversible error.