Turner v. University of Utah Hospitals
271 P.3d 156
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Turner appeals a jury verdict in favor of University of Utah Hospitals and Clinics, University of Utah, and State of Utah.
- Turner alleges NCC nursing care from Aug 11–22, 2002 breached spine precaution standards, causing spinal cord injury.
- NCC log rolling requires at least three staff to move a spine-precaution patient; a sign at bed and log-rolling adherence were at issue.
- MRI on Aug 21 revealed spinal cord injury; CT on admission did not show the later MRI-detected injury.
- Jury trial occurred Oct 20–28, 2009; the jury found no nursing negligence; Turner sought a new trial.
- Court addresses multiple evidentiary, juror, and instruction challenges on appeal; overall verdict affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the for-cause juror challenges were misapplied | Turner argues improper denial of for-cause challenges biased jurors. | Hospital contends cure-or-waive rule preserves error only if biased juror served and peremptories insufficient. | No reversible error; Juror 1 not shown biased; cure-or-waive bar applies. |
| Admission of Dr. MacDonald’s standard of care testimony | Testimony exceeded foundation and addressed nursing care outside expert scope. | Dr. MacDonald collaborating physician could opine on standard and causation within role. | Admission was error, but harmless given nursing-CA evidence. |
| Admission of Dr. MacDonald’s causation testimony and designation issues | Dr. MacDonald was not properly designated as a causation expert and used unduly broad testimony. | Treating physicians designated as experts may offer causation opinions; designation warned Turner. | Allowed under doctrine; trial court did not abuse discretion; testimony within scope. |
| Allowance of Dr. Zdeblick’s causation testimony and Rule 403 concerns | Four causation experts created prejudice and cumulative impact. | Additional causation testimony did not prejudice the jury; not unduly cumulative. | No prejudicial error; four doctors acceptable; trial court within discretion. |
| Cross-examination of Nurse Phelps and scope/foundation | Hospital objections limited Turner’s ability to uncover staffing and practice issues. | Questions exceeded scope of direct or lacked personal foundation; objections proper. | Court did not err; questioning beyond proper scope was curtailed and foundation lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wach, 2001 UT 35 (Utah) (abuse of discretion standard for challenging for-cause juror removal)
- West v. Holley, 2004 UT 97 (Utah) (juror impartiality and voir dire guidance)
- Boice v. Marble, 1999 UT 71 (Utah) (treating physicians designated as experts may testify; scope of expert designation)
- Drew v. Lee, 2011 UT 15 (Utah) (treating physicians may opine on causation without expert report if appropriate)
- Butler v. Naylor, 1999 UT 85 (Utah) (harmless-error standard for instructional errors when theory supports verdict)
- Stevenson 3rd E., LC v. Watts, 2009 UT App 187 (Utah App.) (jury verdict can be sustained on alternative theories)
- State v. Baker, 935 P.2d 503 (Utah 1997) (cure-or-waive rule for challenges to juror bias)
- Campbell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2001 UT 89 (Utah) (harmless error and admissibility considerations for expert testimony)
- Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62 (Utah) (trial court discretion in admitting expert testimony)
- State v. Tuttle, 1965 (Utah) (objections to trial exhibits waivers and procedure)