Waddoups v. Noorda
2013 UT 64
Utah2013Background
- Waddoups sought damages for negligent credentialing against IHC and related entities after Dr. Noorda performed gynecological procedures.
- Utah enacted 78B-3-425 prohibiting negligent credentialing in malpractice suits, effective after enactment.
- The Waddoups’ credentialing claim accrued before the statute's enactment.
- Question certified: whether 78B-3-425 applies retroactively to bar pre-enactment claims.
- Utah Supreme Court held the statute is not retroactive and does not bar pre-enactment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 78B-3-425 apply retroactively to pre-enactment claims? | Waddoups argues the statute should bar the claim retroactively. | IHC argues the statute is new law and should apply retroactively; or at least that clarifying amendments may apply retroactively. | No; statute is not retroactive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Archuleta v. St. Mark’s Hospital, 2010 UT 36 (Utah Supreme Court 2010) (relevant immunities and findings influencing retroactivity analysis)
- World Peace Movement of Am. v. Newspaper Agency Corp., 879 P.2d 253 (Utah 1994) (statutory retroactivity principles and procedural-vs-substantive distinction)
- Anderson v. Bell, 2010 UT 47 (Utah Supreme Court 2010) (distinguishes substantive from procedural rules in retroactivity analysis)
- Warne v. Warne, 2012 UT 13 (Utah Supreme Court 2012) (retroactivity considerations in Utah for newly enacted statutes)
- Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp. v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 953 P.2d 435 (Utah 1997) (retroactivity presumptions in statutory interpretation)