Carbaugh v. Asbestos Corporation: Standard of Review in Utah Courts

Read the standard for the review of the facts in this opinion in the Carbaugh case, where a number of asbestos plaintiffs sought relief after finding that their medical expert, although a licensed and credentialed physician in other states, was not licensed to practice medicine in Utah.

District courts generally enjoy considerable latitude in making evidentiary rulings, including rulings concerning the qualifications of expert witnesses under rule 702 of the Utah Rules of Evidence.

In most instances, therefore, we will disturb such rulings only when the district court has exceeded its discretion. State v. Brown, 948 P.2d 337, 340 (Utah 1997). Our grant of deference to a district court ends, however, when we review its interpretation of statutes. Pugh v. Draper City, 2005 UT 12, 7, 114 P.3d 546.

This appeal features elements of both an evidentiary and a statutory ruling. The district court ruling was made in the context of an application of a rule of evidence, but the ruling is wholly dependent upon the court’s interpretation of the Utah Medical Practice Act.

Accordingly, if the district court’s interpretation of the Act was in error, its evidentiary ruling cannot be sustained. The practical effect of this circumstance is to subject the district court’s evidentiary ruling to nondeferential review.

Courtesy of the Utah State Courts

Other helpful links:

Asbestos Asbestos
Asbestos and lung cancer Asbestos and lung cancer
Mesothelioma attorney Mesothelioma attorney
Mesothelioma Lawyer Mesothelioma lawyer
Asbestos attorney Asbestos attorney