Shah v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc.
314 P.3d 1079
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Shahs were injured in an automobile collision in August 2003 and Aruna Shah was treated at LDS Hospital, including spinal stabilization on August 8, 2003, with complications such as heart failure and postoperative muscle/nerve dysfunction.
- Plaintiffs filed a 2006 complaint for medical negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress against LDS Hospital and Dr. Feuer, later adding multiple other physicians (Myers, Bauman, Thomsen, Zebrack) in an amended complaint.
- In August 2007 Shahs sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint that added numerous theories (fraudulent concealment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, UCSPA, racketeering, etc.).
- Trial court denied Shahs’ motion for leave to amend on December 11, 2007, finding several claims futile and noting many proposed claims would not withstand a motion to dismiss.
- In 2012 the trial court granted summary judgment on the negligence claims; on appeal Shahs challenge only the denial of leave to amend for six specific claims (fraudulent concealment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, UCSPA), which the court ultimately held to be futile.
- Court affirms denial of leave to amend, concluding these six claims could not withstand dismissal and were properly denied as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend was properly denied for futility. | Shahs argue the court failed to assess each claim’s futility and that some claims were legally viable. | Defendants contend the six proposed claims fail as a matter of law for lack of specificity and failure to meet expert requirements. | Yes; denial affirmed for futility of the six claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jensen II, 2003 UT 51, 82 P.3d 1076 (Utah (2003)) (futility review; de novo assessment of leave to amend)
- Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2006) (Rule 15—liberal amendment; review of merits for futility)
- Farlow v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 956 F.2d 982 (10th Cir. 1992) (fraud pleading standards; particularity under Rule 9(b))
- Nixdorf v. Hicken, 612 P.2d 348 (Utah (1980)) (physician-patient duty to disclose information; medical claims)
- Webster v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 290 P.3d 930 (Utah App. 2012) (fraud/particularity requirements; pleading specifics)