Taylor v. University of Utah, 466 P.3d 124

Background

Plaintiff Ashley Taylor was treated with an intrathecal baclofen pump for spasticity; on April 17–19, 2013 she received oral baclofen, underwent pump/catheter replacement surgery, and initially stabilized.
Weeks later Ashley developed prolonged behavioral and cognitive symptoms; treating physician Dr. Judith Gooch concluded baclofen withdrawal led to encephalopathy and permanent cognitive injury.
Dr. Gooch conceded in deposition she had never seen (and could not identify in the literature) a case where a patient remained stable during withdrawal, had baclofen restored within 48 hours, and nonetheless sustained the permanent neurologic injury she attributes to Ashley.
The Taylors offered Dr. Gooch as a proximate-cause expert whose method was logical deduction from three broad premises: (1) baclofen withdrawal can cause metabolic disturbance, (2) metabolic disturbance can cause encephalopathy, and (3) encephalopathy can cause permanent deficits.
The district court excluded Dr. Gooch’s testimony under Utah Rule of Evidence 702(b)(2) for lack of sufficient facts or data; the court of appeals affirmed, and the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari and also affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dr. Gooch’s expert opinion was admissible under Utah R. Evid. 702	Taylor: Dr. Gooch used an acceptable method (logical deduction) based on three uncontested clinical premises from her treating experience; that suffices as the 702(b) showing	Hospital: The premises are too broad/attenuated, literature and experience do not support the specific causal leap; the method lacks sufficient facts or data	Held: Exclusion affirmed — logical deduction here was not based on sufficient facts or data, so testimony properly excluded under rule 702(b)(2)
Whether courts below misapplied Rule 702 by scrutinizing conclusions rather than methods	Taylor: Lower courts impermissibly assessed Dr. Gooch’s conclusion instead of whether her method was grounded in sufficient facts/data	Hospital: The courts properly evaluated the facts/data underpinning the logical-deduction method and found them insufficient	Held: Courts applied Rule 702 correctly; they examined the sufficiency of the facts/data underlying the method, not merely the conclusion
Whether the underlying facts were generally accepted by the relevant expert community under Rule 702(c)	Taylor: The three premises are consistent with Dr. Gooch’s experience and the literature, so they meet 702(c)	Hospital: No showing that the relevant expert community accepts these broad premises as a reliable basis for the specific deduction	Held: The gaps mean the premises are not shown to be generally accepted as a sufficient basis; 702(c) not satisfied
Whether Taylors’ alternative specific-causation argument (differential diagnosis) should be considered	Taylor: In reply, argued Dr. Gooch also performed a differential diagnosis establishing specific causation	Hospital: Argument was untimely and inadequate—only shows temporal proximity	Held: Argument forfeited (raised only on reply); likely fails on merits because differential diagnosis offered only temporal proximity and did not rule in/out other causes

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lopez, 417 P.3d 116 (Utah 2018) (discusses trial-court gatekeeper role under Rule 702)
Eskelson v. Davis Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 242 P.3d 762 (Utah 2010) (addresses application of amended Rule 702 to experience-based opinions)
State v. Clopten, 362 P.3d 1216 (Utah 2015) (explains reliability applies to methods/principles, not merely conclusions)
State v. Rothlisberger, 147 P.3d 1176 (Utah 2006) (recognizes that experts may use simple inductive/deductive reasoning)
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (courts may exclude expert opinion when there is too great an analytical gap)
Turpin v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 959 F.2d 1349 (6th Cir. 1992) (analytical-gap doctrine; unreliable extrapolation)
Nelson v. Enid Med. Assocs., Inc., 376 P.3d 212 (Okla. 2016) (discusses impermissible analytical extrapolation from data to conclusion)