Carbaugh v. Asbestos Corporation: Did the Utah District Court Err as a Matter of Law?

Read the first section of the discussion 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. This section of the discussion focuses on the argument of whether the district court had erred in a matter of law.

The district court erred when it concluded as a matter of law that Dr. Schonfeld’s activities undertaken on behalf of the plaintiffs violated the Utah Medical Practice Act. (See Footnote) We therefore reverse the district court’s disqualification of Dr. Schonfeld on this ground.

We find that the Act’s expert testimony exception allows experts who are licensed to practice medicine in other states but not in Utah, like Dr. Schonfeld, to conduct pre-testimony medical evaluations in preparation for their forthcoming testimony as expert witnesses. The Act requires that physicians and surgeons be licensed in Utah in order to engage in the practice of medicine in Utah, subject to the enumerated exceptions. This requirement is designed “to protect the people of Utah from [the] open and unrestrained practice of medicine and surgery.” State v. Hoffman, 558 P.2d 602, 605 (Utah 1976).

While generally prohibiting the practice of medicine in Utah without a license, the Act enumerates enough exceptions to persuade us that the legislature is mindful that, although individual states have the authority to impose licensing standards that they deem appropriate, the United States enjoys nationwide standards for the education, training, and practice of its physicians.

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