438 P.3d 975
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Patient received intrathecal baclofen via pump and catheter; pump was replaced in April 2013 but the catheter was not.
- Shortly after replacement, the patient had increased spasticity; oral baclofen was given, imaging and a dye study showed no obvious pump/catheter defect, but surgeons replaced both pump and catheter as a precaution; symptoms improved.
- Weeks later the patient developed prolonged psychotic/manic symptoms; the Taylors’ expert initially suspected overdose, then concluded baclofen withdrawal caused a metabolic disturbance leading to encephalopathy and permanent cognitive injury.
- The Taylors sued for medical malpractice and sought to admit the expert’s causation testimony; defendants moved to exclude under Utah Rule of Evidence 702, arguing the opinion lacked supporting literature or comparable clinical experience.
- The expert conceded she had never seen a case where baclofen withdrawal produced permanent neurological injury once therapeutic levels were restored and was unaware of any reported cases in the literature; medical sources indicate withdrawal symptoms typically resolve within 48 hours after reinstatement.
- The district court excluded the expert because her opinion was not based on sufficient facts or data; the Taylors appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding the Taylors’ causation expert under Utah R. Evid. 702 for lack of sufficient facts/data | Taylors: Expert’s logical deduction from clinical experience is a reliable method and satisfies Rule 702 threshold | Defendants: Expert lacks supporting literature and has no personal exposure to a nearly identical situation; opinion is unsupported and speculative | Court: Affirmed exclusion — neither the expert’s experience nor medical literature supplied sufficient facts or data to reliably support the causation opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Eskelson v. Davis Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 242 P.3d 762 (Utah 2010) (trial court gatekeeper role; approach expert testimony with rational skepticism)
- State v. Lopez, 417 P.3d 116 (Utah 2018) (proponent must make a threshold showing of reliability under Rule 702)