Title: Williams v. Atlas
Citation: 2007 UT 68
Docket Number: 20050817
State: Utah
Issuer: Utah Supreme Court
Date: August 24, 2007

1 The following six cases have been consolidated under this case: 20050818, 20050820, 20050831, 20050841, 20050848, and 20050864. 2 Because there are many plaintiffs and defendants involved in these proceedings, there are also many attorneys. We are therefore listing only the counsel who presented at oral argument before this court. 2007 UT 68 This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH ----oo0oo---- Mark R. Williams, No. 200508171 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. F I L E D Atlas Turner, et al., Defendants and Appellees. August 24, 2007 --- Third District, Salt Lake The Honorable Glenn K. Iwasaki No. 020904578 Attorneys:2 Gilbert L. Purcell, Novato, CA, for plaintiffs Patricia W. Christensen, Salt Lake City, for defendants --- NEHRING, Justice: ¶1 We heard this appeal in conjunction with three other cases that share the same facts and issues that are relevant to this case. We discuss the facts and issues relevant to the four cases in Carbaugh v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd., 2007 UT 65, __ P.3d __, which we also release today. In that opinion, we held that the plaintiffs’ medical expert, Dr. Schonfeld, did not violate the Utah Medical Practice Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 58-67-101 to -803 (2002 & Supp. 2005), when he, as a physician not licensed to practice medicine in Utah, conducted physical examinations of the plaintiffs in Utah as part of his preparations to testify at trial. Accordingly, we held that the district court erred in No. 20050817 2 finding that Dr. Schonfeld, as a physician unlicensed to practice medicine in Utah, was unreliable as an expert witness and unavailable to testify at trial on behalf of the plaintiffs. We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings pursuant to the principles announced in Carbaugh. --- ¶2 Chief Justice Durham, Associate Chief Justice Wilkins, Justice Durrant, and Justice Parrish concur in Justice Nehring’s opinion.