Hansen v. Harper Excavating, 2014 UT App 180, 323 P.3d 969
The plaintiff appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the basis that the plaintiff’s claims required expert medical testimony. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was required to provide expert testimony from which the jury could find, without speculation, that he would have avoided the injuries he complained of if he had received the recommended treatment. The court additionally rejected the plaintiff’s argument that even if expert testimony were required, he could show causation through the physicians he designated as fact witnesses. Although a treating physician does not fall within the category of “retained or specially employed” expert witness and therefore does not need to comply with the expert report requirements of former Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3)(B) (2010), treating physicians must still be disclosed as expert witnesses under subsection (a)(3)(A) if they will provide opinion testimony based on their experience or training.