Can courts exclude expert testimony for late disclosure of causation opinions? Stevenett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Explained

In Stevenett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when trial courts may exclude expert witness testimony as a discovery sanction for violations of civil procedure rules governing expert disclosure.

Background and Facts

Allyson Stevenett was injured when she tripped over a metal rod protruding from a cart rack in Wal-Mart’s parking lot. Eight months before trial, Wal-Mart disclosed Dr. MacArthur as an expert witness. Dr. MacArthur conducted an independent medical examination and prepared his report, which omitted any opinion regarding the cause of Stevenett’s injuries. However, three days before trial during his deposition, Dr. MacArthur testified there was only a one-percent chance that Stevenett’s fall could have caused her cervical and thoracic injuries.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the trial court properly excluded Dr. MacArthur’s causation testimony under Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 35 (IME reports), Rule 26 (expert disclosure), and Rule 37 (discovery sanctions). Stevenett argued the late disclosure violated discovery rules and constituted unfair surprise.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals found the trial court erred in excluding the testimony under Rule 35, as that rule only permits exclusion when a physician fails or refuses to make an IME report after court order. However, the court properly excluded the testimony under Rules 26 and 37 as a discovery sanction. Wal-Mart violated the court’s scheduling order by failing to supplement interrogatories regarding affirmative defenses with the causation opinion. The court found “fault” on Wal-Mart’s part for the late disclosure, satisfying the prerequisites for sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2).

Practice Implications

This case demonstrates the importance of timely expert disclosure in Utah litigation. Practitioners must ensure all expert opinions, particularly regarding causation, are included in initial reports or properly supplemented through discovery. Courts have broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions, including exclusion of expert testimony, when parties violate scheduling orders or fail to supplement discovery responses. The decision also clarifies that payment of medical bills by insurance can establish sufficient foundation for admission of medical expenses at trial.