Carbaugh v. Asbestos Corporation: Background of the Case Opinion and Decision from Utah Courts

Read the background of the parties in the 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.

Although licensed to practice medicine in eleven states, Dr. Schonfeld is not licensed to practice medicine in Utah. His lack of Utah credentials notwithstanding, Dr. Schonfeld traveled to Utah and set up examination sites in hotels and motels in Salt Lake City. Dr. Schonfeld examined a number of individuals, overseeing the administration of pulmonary function tests, diagnosing his subjects, and offering medical advice.

Dr. Schonfeld employed John Panzera as a technician to administer the pulmonary function tests. Mr. Panzera did not have a current license to administer the tests. He had previously been licensed to conduct pulmonary function tests in California, but his license had been inactive since 1996. Dr. Schonfeld diagnosed all of the plaintiffs with asbestos-related injuries, which became the basis for their suits against the defendants. No Utah physician participated in Dr. Schonfeld’s examinations or diagnoses.

Believing that Dr. Schonfeld’s lack of Utah credentials rendered him unqualified to testify as a medical expert, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The defendants noted that expert testimony was necessary to establish a causal link between asbestos and the plaintiffs’ diseases; and because the categorically unreliable Dr. Schonfeld was the only expert designated to testify on the issue of causation, the defendants urged the district court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ suits.

After considering the merits of the motion, the district court granted the defendants the relief they sought. The district court concluded as a matter of law that Utah’s medical licensing statutes did not permit a medical expert to conduct pre-testimony examinations. Based on this conclusion, the district court held that Dr. Schonfeld’s testimony was obtained in violation of the Utah Medical Practice Act and was, therefore, unreliable and inadmissible as a matter of public policy. The plaintiffs appealed.

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