Drew v. Lee, 2011 UT 15

In Oct. 2005, Drew and Lee were in a car collision; Drew was treated at Alta View Hospital and by multiple physicians.
In Aug. 2006, Drew filed suit and identified treating physicians as potential trial experts under Rule 26(a)(3)(A) but did not produce written reports under 26(a)(3)(B).
Lee moved to exclude testimony; district court granted, holding treating physicians must file expert reports for causation and prognosis testimony.
Relying on Pete v. Youngblood, the district court reasoned treating physicians who testify beyond treatment are "retained" experts requiring reports.
Drew appealed; Utah Supreme Court granted jurisdiction; court analyzes whether Rule 26(a)(3)(B) requires reports from treating physicians.
Court holds that Rule 26(a)(3)(B) requires reports only from retained or specially employed experts; treating physicians are exempt; remands for proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Rule 26(a)(3)(B) require written reports from treating physicians?	Drew contends treating physicians are not retained/specially employed.	Lee argues treating physicians may be retained if testimony goes beyond treatment.	No; rule 26(a)(3)(B) does not apply to treating physicians.

Pete v. Youngblood, 141 P.3d 629 (2006 UT App) (treating physicians not automatically subject to written reports under Rule 26(a)(3)(B))
State v. Rodrigues, 218 P.3d 610 (2009 UT 62) (interpretation of Utah procedure rules; general analytic approach)
First Equity Fed., Inc. v. Phillips Dev., LC, 52 P.3d 1137 (2002 UT 56) (rules of civil procedure interpretation guidance)
Arbogast Family Trust v. River Crossings, LLC, 238 P.3d 1035 (2010 UT 40) (interpretation of procedural rules; emphasis on plain meaning)
Kirkham v. Societe Air Fr., 236 F.R.D. 9 (D.D.C. 2006) (substantive vs status-based approaches to expert disclosure)