Drew v. Lee, 2011 Utah LEXIS 30

Drew and Lee were involved in a motor vehicle collision in October 2005; Drew sought treatment from several providers after the crash.
In August 2006, Drew sued Lee for damages and identified treating physicians as potential trial experts under Utah Rule 26(a)(3)(A) but did not produce written reports under 26(a)(3)(B).
Lee moved in limine to exclude treating-physician testimony on causation and prognosis, arguing 26(a)(3)(B) required written reports for those witnesses.
The district court granted the motion in limine, treating the physicians as needing expert reports because their testimony extended beyond treatment.
Drew appealed, arguing treating physicians are exempt from 26(a)(3)(B) because they are not retained or specially employed to testify.
Utah Supreme Court adopted a status-based approach, holding treating physicians do not fall within the 26(a)(3)(B) written-report requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 26(a)(3)(B) requires written reports from treating physicians	Drew: treating physicians are not retained or specially employed; no 26(a)(3)(B) report required.	Lee: treating physicians who testify on causation/prognosis must file reports under 26(a)(3)(B).	Treating physicians exempt; status-based rule governs.

Pete v. Youngblood, 141 P.3d 629 (2006 UT App 303) (treating physicians may testify without a written report under rule 26 when not retained)