Daniels v. Gamma: a Basketful of Medical Malpractice Rulings

In Daniels, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a number of medical malpractice issues together with general trial issues.  Here is the gist:

1. The statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action does not begin to run until the patient discovers the legal cause of his/her injury.  “Legal cause” includes the fact that the patient has been injured, that the injury was caused by negligence, and the precise causal event leading to the injury.

2.  Evidence that two defendant doctors were insured by the same company is not relevant evidence and should be excluded at trial unless there exists a “substantial connection between the witness and the insurance company,” such as where the defendants have an employment or control relationship with the insurance provider.

3. A claim for punitive damages under a gross negligence cause of action may only succeed if the gross negligence is both “knowing” and “reckless.”  The latter element is part of the gross negligence cause of action while “knowing” is a separate element that must be plead and proven in addition to the recklessness.

4. Physicians owe their patients fiduciary duties, however, those duties may be abrogated or modified by statute.  In this case, the duties of disclosure are, in part, abrogated by Utah’s informed consent statute.  A noted exception is the “Nixdorf” disclosure requirement in which a physician has a duty “to disclose to his patient any material information concerning the patient’s physical condition.”

The Court’s clarification regarding breach of fiduciary duty is a potential landmine.  Breach of fiduciary duty often carries by implication the threat of punitive damages.  As noted, there must be proof of knowing and reckless disregard of the patient.  Such allegations, however, may be perceived as easier to make when fiduciary duties are applied instead of the usual professional malpractice or negligence claim.  I suspect that there is more fruit on this tree that this Court is willing to pick in the right case (i.e., the Court declined to rule on Daniels’ assertion of duties of good faith and loyalty because the claims were not adequately briefed).  Good luck.