Kirk v. Anderson, 2021 UT 41 (Aug. 5, 2021)

The defendant doctor performed an IME on plaintiff during a worker’s compensation case. Claiming that the doctor’s report delayed him from receiving the compensation he was owed, plaintiff sued the doctor alleging negligence and reckless conduct. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that a doctor in that scenario would not owe the plaintiff a duty, and the supreme court affirmed finding that no doctor/patient relationship existed in the IME context presented and that public policy considerations militated against finding a duty based upon the doctor’s affirmative acts and alleged injuries flowing from a delay in prior proceedings.