Utah Court of Appeals
What constitutes prejudicial error in Utah medical malpractice appeals? Turner v. University of Utah Hospitals Explained
Summary
Turner sued University of Utah Hospitals alleging nurses breached the standard of care by failing to properly log roll her and post spine precaution signs, causing spinal cord injury and paralysis. The jury found no negligence. Turner appealed claiming multiple trial errors including improper jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions.
Analysis
In Turner v. University of Utah Hospitals, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed multiple challenges to a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case, demonstrating the exacting standard for establishing prejudicial error on appeal.
Background and Facts
Ella Turner suffered severe injuries in a car accident and was admitted to University of Utah Hospital with spinal fractures requiring spine precautions. Turner alleged that nurses breached the standard of care by failing to consistently use the log rolling procedure and failing to post warning signs at her bedside. An MRI ten days after admission revealed spinal cord injury that rendered Turner paraplegic. The jury unanimously found the hospital’s nurses were not negligent.
Key Legal Issues
Turner raised three main appellate challenges: (1) the trial court improperly denied for-cause challenges to prospective jurors; (2) the court erred in numerous evidentiary rulings, including allowing testimony from treating physicians about causation and standard of care; and (3) the court improperly instructed the jury on alternative treatment methods.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the cure-or-waive rule for jury challenges, finding Turner waived her objections by not using all peremptory challenges on questioned jurors. For evidentiary issues, the court found only one error—allowing Dr. MacDonald to testify about the general standard of care without proper foundation. However, applying the harmless error standard, the court concluded the error would not have changed the verdict given the strength of the hospital’s nursing expert testimony compared to Turner’s expert.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that appellate courts will not reverse trial verdicts unless errors were prejudicial, meaning they likely affected the outcome. The court’s detailed analysis of expert witness testimony requirements under Utah Rule of Evidence 702 provides guidance for medical malpractice practitioners. Additionally, the decision confirms that treating physicians designated as experts may testify about causation within their expertise, even without separate expert reports.
Case Details
Case Name
Turner v. University of Utah Hospitals
Citation
2011 UT App 431
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20091073-CA
Date Decided
December 22, 2011
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A trial court does not commit prejudicial error when evidentiary errors are harmless because they would not have changed the jury’s verdict given the strength of the prevailing party’s evidence.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for jury selection decisions and admission/exclusion of evidence; correctness for jury instruction rulings
Practice Tip
When challenging evidentiary rulings on appeal, focus on demonstrating prejudice by showing how the error likely affected the jury’s verdict, not just that the trial court made a mistake.
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.