Does the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act apply to wilderness therapy injuries? Scott v. Wingate Wilderness Therapy Explained

In Scott v. Wingate Wilderness Therapy, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a certified question from the Tenth Circuit regarding the scope of the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act. The case arose when seventeen-year-old Jacob Scott was injured during a rock climbing incident while participating in Wingate’s wilderness therapy program.

Background and Facts

Scott was enrolled in Wingate’s wilderness therapy program, which combined traditional counseling with wilderness experiences. A licensed marriage and family therapist created a treatment plan for Scott that included weekly therapy sessions and immersion in wilderness principles and experiences, including hiking. During a group hike two weeks into the program, Scott and other participants climbed a seventy-foot rock formation without safety equipment. Scott fell approximately twenty-five feet while descending, shattering his knee. Scott later sued Wingate for negligence, arguing the staff failed to properly supervise the climbing activity.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether Scott’s injury related to or arose out of health care rendered by a health care provider under the Malpractice Act. This determination would subject Scott’s claims to the Act’s procedural requirements, including a two-year statute of limitations and prelitigation panel review. The parties agreed that Wingate qualified as a health care provider but disputed whether wilderness therapy activities constituted health care.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that the Malpractice Act applied to Scott’s claims. The court defined health care as any act or treatment performed by a health care provider for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient’s medical care, treatment, or confinement. The court rejected Scott’s argument that only acts requiring medical expertise or licenses constitute health care, emphasizing that the Act’s plain language does not impose such limitations. The court found that the hiking and climbing activities were performed pursuant to Scott’s treatment plan, which specifically included wilderness experiences and hiking as therapeutic components. Wingate’s field staff qualified as health care providers because they were employees acting within their scope of employment while implementing treatment prescribed by a licensed therapist.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly expands the potential application of the Malpractice Act beyond traditional medical settings. Practitioners should be aware that activities prescribed as part of a treatment plan may constitute health care even when performed by unlicensed staff members. The decision emphasizes that the Act’s relating to or arising out of standard requires more than a tangential relationship but does not require proximate causation. The court’s analysis suggests that any injury occurring during the implementation of a prescribed treatment plan will likely fall within the Act’s scope, regardless of whether the specific activity appears medical in nature.