• Government
• Profession
• Business
• Opinion
• Health

• Health reform
• H1N1
• P4P
• EMRs
• Medicare
• Liability
• AMA House
• » More

• Book Excerpt
• Business Pitch
• Meetings
• » More

• Contract Language
• Ethics Forum
• In the Courts
• Practice Management
• Technically Speaking
• » More

• Issue dates
• Regions
• Health plans
• Sections
• News briefs
• Columns
• Editorials
• Letters
• Writers
• Other years

• Search tips
• E-mail alert
• Radio
• RSS
• Mobile
• Subscribe
• Institutions
• Staff directory
• Advertising
• Permissions
• Reprints
• News media
• Site guide
• Useful links
• About
• Premium
• Contact

Utah doctors could face more liability lawsuits

The state Supreme Court clarifies a reading of a prior ruling that the lower courts relied on to dismiss professional liability claims against physicians.

By Amy Lynn Sorrel, amednews staff. Dec. 19, 2005.

• PRINT|
• E-MAIL|
• RESPOND|
• REPRINTS|
• SHARE

A Utah Supreme Court opinion could open the door to a rush on the courts and expose physicians to liability they were not expecting.

If a patient who can prove a current injury resulted from negligence ever wants to collect damages for future medical problems that could arise, he or she must ask for the money in the initial lawsuit, the state's high court said in its November decision in Medved v. Glenn.

The opinion reinforces Utah's one-action rule, said R. Chet Loftis, general counsel for the Utah Medical Assn. Under the rule, causes of action cannot be split, leaving plaintiffs with one chance to bring claims for a current injury and any future related damages at the same time. After the statute of limitations runs out, the plaintiff won't be allowed to sue again for that injury. Previously, patients could sue only for future damages after an injury reoccurred.

Although lawyers cannot estimate how many new claims may ensue, they do expect more filings against physicians as patients who have not sought future damages look to file cases before the statute of limitations runs out. This ruling means that in the short term, physicians could face more medical liability suits, as "the statute of limitations pushes cases to be brought now," Loftis said.

But Loftis added that the ruling is still limited, because patients must show that they have a current injury that resulted from physician negligence. The more speculative a claim is, the more difficult it might be to seek damages, he said.