Does Utah's apology statute protect healthcare providers' statements of fault from admission in malpractice cases? Lawrence v. MountainStar Healthcare Explained

In Lawrence v. MountainStar Healthcare, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question about the scope of Utah’s apology statute in medical malpractice litigation, specifically whether statements acknowledging fault are protected from admission as evidence.

Background and facts: Shannon Lawrence sought emergency treatment for an allergic reaction to Tylenol 3. A nurse erroneously administered epinephrine intravenously instead of subcutaneously as ordered, causing an adverse reaction that required intensive care. Hospital administrators made various statements to Lawrence and her family, including acknowledgments that “we messed up” and “there’s been an incident, accident,” along with assurances that they would “take care of” her medical needs. The parties stipulated that the improper administration breached the standard of care, leaving only causation and damages for trial.

Key legal issues: The primary issue was whether Utah’s apology statute, Utah Code section 78B-3-422, and Utah Rule of Evidence 409 protect statements of fault from admission in medical malpractice cases. The trial court excluded all of the hospital’s post-incident statements as irrelevant, but the court of appeals had to determine whether statements acknowledging fault should have been admissible.

Court’s analysis and holding: The court of appeals found that Utah’s apology statute was ambiguous regarding statements of fault. Examining the legislative history, the court noted that the original bill included “fault” in the list of protected expressions, but legislators deliberately removed that word before passage. The Senate sponsor explicitly stated that “if doctors admit fault, you can actually use that” and “I took that out of the bill.” Based on this legislative intent, the court held that statements of fault are not protected by Utah’s apology statute and are therefore admissible. However, statements expressing sympathy, compassion, or offers to pay medical expenses remain inadmissible.

Practice implications: This decision creates an important distinction for Utah practitioners handling medical malpractice cases. While healthcare providers’ expressions of sympathy and offers to pay remain protected, admissions of fault or error are admissible evidence. Practitioners representing healthcare providers should advise clients to be careful about making statements that acknowledge specific mistakes or fault, as these will not receive statutory protection. For plaintiffs’ attorneys, this ruling provides an avenue to admit certain post-incident statements that acknowledge fault while recognizing that expressions of sympathy remain inadmissible under the apology statute.