Hansen v. Harper Excavating, Inc.
332 P.3d 969
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Hansen was hired by Harper in November 2008.
- In February 2004, Hansen noticed no health insurance deductions and informed Henderson, Harper's benefits coordinator.
- Hansen completed a second enrollment form in March 2004; premiums were deducted retroactively to February 2004 and continued through his April 2004 departure.
- In May 2004 Hansen sought medical care for breathing problems, learned he had no insurance, and Harper sent him a denial letter and reimbursed premiums.
- In June 2004 Hansen was hospitalized for back pain; MRI was recommended but unaffordable without insurance; later he was diagnosed with a spinal staph infection and suffered permanent back injuries.
- In November 2005 Hansen sued Harper under ERISA in federal court; after successful recovery, he pursued state-law negligence claims alleging lack of insurance caused his injuries and mental health deterioration; Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing lack of expert causation testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony is required to prove causation. | Hansen argued treating physicians could prove causation as fact witnesses. | Defendants argued the causal link involved medical factors needing expert testimony. | Expert testimony required; causation not proven without experts. |
| Whether treating physicians can be used as expert witnesses without disclosure. | Hansen designated treating physicians as fact witnesses to avoid expert disclosure. | Rule 26 requires treating physicians to be disclosed as experts if providing opinion testimony; mere designation as fact witnesses is insufficient. | Treating physicians must be disclosed as experts if they will provide opinion testimony; mere fact-witness designation is not enough. |
| Whether failure to designate expert witnesses warrants summary judgment on negligence claims. | Our physicians could establish causation without formal expert reports. | No proper expert disclosure; no proof of causation; summary judgment appropriate. | Summary judgment affirmed due to lack of designated expert testimony on causation. |
| Whether the district court properly applied discovery and Rule 26 procedures as of the pre-2011 amendments. | Procedural rules allowed treating physicians to serve as experts with appropriate notice. | Procedural requirements denied Hansen the ability to present expert causation evidence. | Court interpreted pre-2011 rules; disclosures required as to expert testimony from treaters. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilpatrick v. Wiley, Rein & Fielding, 909 P.2d 1283 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (causation is a highly fact-sensitive element requiring proof)
- Fox v. Brigham Young Univ., 176 P.3d 446 (Utah Ct.App.2007) (obvious causation exception limited to obvious cases)
- Beard v. K-Mart Corp., 12 P.3d 1015 (Utah Ct.App.2000) (causation requires expert testimony in medical context)
- Jackson v. Colston, 209 P.2d 566 (Utah 1949) (causation not presumed; plaintiff must prove connection)
- Orvis v. Johnson, 177 P.3d 600 (Utah) (summary judgment standard and burden shift in Utah law)
- Drew v. Lee, 250 P.3d 48 (Utah) (treating physicians and expert disclosures under Rule 26)
- Pete v. Youngblood, 141 P.3d 629 (Utah Ct.App.2006) (treating physicians must be disclosed as experts if testifying)
- Musser v. Gentiva Health Servs., 356 F.3d 751 (7th Cir.2004) (treating physicians must be designated as experts when testifying)