Wilson v. IHC Hospitals, Inc.
289 P.3d 369
Utah2012Background
- Jerome and Leilani Wilson sued IHC Hospitals, alleging medical negligence during Jared's labor and delivery caused brain damage; the 2008 trial ended with a verdict for IHC finding no negligence.
- The Wilsons sought to exclude collateral source evidence via a pretrial in limine order, which the trial court granted.
- During trial, IHC repeatedly referenced collateral source benefits and the absence of out-of-pocket expenses, in violation of the in limine order.
- IHC counsel met ex parte with Dr. Boyer (not employed by IHC) and with employed physicians, raising fiduciary and confidentiality concerns.
- The trial court admitted IHC’s neonatal morbidity and mortality statistics over IHC’s objections, but the court later held the statistics privileged under the care review statute.
- The Utah Court of Appeals ultimately vacated the verdict and remanded for a new trial, holding IHC’s collateral source references were persistent and prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral source evidence violated the rule | IHC repeatedly referenced collateral sources and out-of-pocket expenses. | The references were permissible under case law and trial strategy. | Yes; violated collateral source rule; verdict vacated and remanded. |
| Ex parte meetings with treating physicians improper | Dr. Boyer’s ex parte meeting violated fiduciary duties. | Ex parte meetings with employed physicians were permissible for vicarious liability defense. | Improper for Boyer; permissible for employed physicians. |
| Nurse training modules admissibility | Training modules show hospital protocols relevant to care. | Modules lacked foundation and were not tied to Jared's Hospital. | Properly excluded. |
| Care review privilege and neonatal statistics | Statistics should be discoverable to assess hospital care. | Statistics protected by care review privilege. | Privileged; not subject to discovery or evidence; remand guidance provided. |
| Waiver/Invited error | Stipulation and defense actions did not waive appellate review of collateral source errors. | Waiver or invited error should bar review. | Not waived or invited error; appellate review allowed; reversal appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahana v. Onyx Acceptance Corp., 2004 UT 59 (Utah 2004) (collateral source rule framework and standards)
- Green v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co., 59 F.3d 1029 (10th Cir. 1995) (policy justifications for collateral source rule; windfall concerns)
- Eichel v. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co., 375 U.S. 253 (Supreme Court 1963) (prejudicial impact of collateral source evidence)
- Cates v. Wilson, 361 S.E.2d 734 (N.C. 1987) (double recovery concern from collateral source evidence)
- Sorensen v. Barbuto, 2008 UT 8, 177 P.3d 614 (Utah Supreme Court 2008) (treating-physician confidentiality and ex parte communications; implications for trial practice)