Utah Court Rules – Published for Comment
The Supreme Court and Judicial Council invite comments about amending these rules. To view the proposed amendment, click on the rule number.
To submit a comment or view the comments of others, click on “Continue Reading.” To submit a comment, scroll down to the “Leave a Reply” section, and type your comment in the “Comment” field. Type your name and email address in the designated fields and click “Post Comment.”
Comments cannot be acknowledged, but all will be considered. Comments are saved to a buffer for review before publication.
Posted: August 19, 2016
URE 0412 Amend. Changes the classification of records described in subparagraph (c)(3) from sealed to protected.
URE 0504 Amend. The definition of “Representative of the client” has been revised to be more grammatically correct, and to clarify the application of the term “specifically authorized” in subparagraph (a)(4).
My only concern is that defense attorneys do not have control over a physician’s schedule. There are very few doctors who will agree to perform medical examinations to begin with (because of being attacked either at a deposition or at trial). I am concerned that if we put such tight time constraints on the doctors that even less will be willing to perform the examinations. I would support a rule that states that we must disclose to opposing counsel within 28 days of receipt of the report—-but only giving doctors 28 days to write a report is unrealistic. The best IME doctors are the ones who have active practices….scheduling and writing these reports are very time consuming. I rarely get my report back in 30 days (much less 28). If a case is complicated, the doctor could be required to review 1000’s of pages of medical records and summarize–this cannot be done in a short period of time. What will occur is that this rule change will force us to use “mill” doctors who only do IME’s–further reducing credibility of the doctor, increasing expense and limiting our pool of doctors from which we can choose. I don’t think this time limit is reasonable and I think it would harm the litigants considerably.