Bowman v. Kalm

179 P.3d 754 (Utah 2008) · Supreme Court of Utah · February 5, 2008 · No. No. 20060986

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court held that expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases, including cases involving psychiatrists. It recognized a common-knowledge exception when the causal connection between the alleged negligence and the injury is readily apparent to a layperson, and concluded that exception applied to the alleged prescription of sleeping medication causing clumsiness that contributed to the decedent's fatal entrapment. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Court
Supreme Court of Utah
Writing for the Court
Associate Chief Justice Wilkins; Chief Justice Durham; Justice Durrant; Justice Parrish; Court of Appeals Judge Gregory K. Orme
Jurisdiction
Utah
Decision date
February 5, 2008
Docket number
No. 20060986
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant in medical malpractice and wrongful death claims.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed for correctness, with the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; the appellate court gives no deference to the district court's conclusions of law.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion
Parties
Kim Bowman, as guardian for the minor heirs of Ann Davis Menlove, deceased v. Michael A. Kalm, M.D.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

medical malpracticeproximate causesummary judgmentstandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

medical malpracticewrongful deathhealth lawcivil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether expert testimony is invariably required to establish proximate cause in a medical malpractice case.
  2. Whether the common-knowledge exception to the expert-testimony requirement applied to the causal connection between the alleged negligent prescription and Menlove's death.
  3. Whether summary judgment was proper on the medical malpractice and wrongful death claims.

Holdings

  1. Expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases, but it is not invariably required.
  2. The common-knowledge exception applied because the causal connection between medication-induced clumsiness, the dresser falling, and Menlove's death did not require specialized medical knowledge.
  3. Summary judgment was improper because the absence of expert medical testimony on proximate cause was not a bar to the claims under the common-knowledge exception.

Key quotations

It is not true, therefore, that proximate cause must always be supported by expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. (¶ 12)
Expert testimony is generally required in medical malpractice cases in order to establish the element of proximate cause. It is not required, however, in cases where the causal connection between the alleged negligence and the harm caused is a matter of common knowledge. (¶ 15)

Factual background

Ann Davis Menlove was treated by psychiatrist Michael Kalm for anorexia, depression, and anxiety. Kalm prescribed amitriptyline, and Menlove filled a prescription for thirty sleeping pills; thirteen were missing when she was found dead the next day, pinned beneath a bedroom dresser. The autopsy identified mechanical compression of the chest as the immediate cause of death. Bowman presented expert evidence concerning breach of the standard of care and evidence that Menlove was prone to overdosing on sleeping medication and was clumsy due to medication and anorexia, but he presented no expert testimony on proximate cause.

Procedural history

Bowman brought medical malpractice and wrongful death claims against Dr. Kalm on behalf of Menlove's minor heirs. The district court granted Dr. Kalm summary judgment because Bowman had not provided expert testimony establishing proximate cause. The Utah Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Remand instructions

Remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…