Do sexual assault claims against doctors fall under Utah's malpractice act? Jane Doe H.P. v. Broadbent Explained

The Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical question about the scope of the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act in Jane Doe H.P. v. Broadbent, determining when alleged misconduct by healthcare providers falls outside the Act’s requirements.

Background and Facts

Ninety-four former patients sued David Broadbent, an OB-GYN who practiced in Provo for over four decades, alleging sexual assault and sexual battery under the guise of medical treatment. The plaintiffs described various incidents of alleged abuse during medical appointments, including inappropriate touching and sexual comments. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claims fell under the Malpractice Act and plaintiffs had failed to comply with its prelitigation requirements. The district court granted the motion, ruling the alleged injuries arose from healthcare rendered by Broadbent.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the plaintiffs’ claims constituted a “malpractice action against a health care provider” under Utah Code § 78B-3-403(17). The Act defines such actions as those “based upon alleged personal injuries relating to or arising out of health care rendered” by the provider. The Act defines “health care” as acts performed “during the patient’s medical care, treatment, or confinement.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the alleged conduct did not constitute “health care” under the Act. The court emphasized that for an act to occur “during” medical treatment, it must fall “within the scope” of treatment and have some “conceivable medical or health purpose.” The court distinguished between the timing of alleged misconduct and its substantive nature, explaining that sexual assault does not become healthcare simply because it occurs during a medical appointment or is committed by a healthcare provider with enhanced access to patients.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that the Malpractice Act does not apply to all conduct by healthcare providers during medical encounters. Practitioners should focus on whether alleged conduct had any medical purpose rather than merely when or where it occurred when challenging Act applicability. The ruling reinforces that acts lacking medical necessity or purpose fall outside the Act’s scope, even when committed by healthcare providers during otherwise legitimate medical care.