The Utah Supreme Court ruled Thursday that an independent medical examiner who gave his opinion on the condition of an injured worker cannot be sued by the worker because there was no physician-patient relationship established.

While working for Park City Plumbing in Park City, Utah, Jeremy Kirk was rear-ended by another driver in 2015 and later received treatment for symptoms he claimed were caused by the collision, according to documents in Jeremy Kirk v. Mark Anderson, M.D., and Broadspire Services Inc., filed in Salt Lake City.

Mr. Kirk’s employer arranged for an independent medical exam of his injuries by Dr. Mark Anderson. After examining Mr. Kirk and reviewing his records, Dr. Anderson opined that “the accident caused Kirk to suffer a transient cervical strain and that all other symptoms that Kirk complained of or had been treated for since the accident were secondary to pre-existing conditions,” documents state.

Mr. Kirk disagreed with that conclusion and filed for a hearing before the Utah Labor Commission, which in 2018 determined that the 2015 accident caused his injuries and ordered the employer and its insurer to pay his historical medical expenses related to the accident.

Mr. Kirk then filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and reckless conduct against the doctor and Broadspire Services Inc., which handled the claim. Both defendants moved to dismiss, stating that Dr. Anderson did not owe Mr. Kirk a duty of care because no physician-patient relationship existed in the context of a workers comp independent medical exam.

A district court granted the motion, reasoning that “a health care provider who is conducting an IME doesn't owe an actionable duty of care to the person being evaluated,” and Mr. Kirk appealed.

The state supreme affirmed the lower-court decision

on the grounds that no patient-provider contract existed between Mr. Kirk and Dr. Anderson.

The court also did not find a duty of care in the harm allegedly caused by delays in proceedings, which Mr. Kirk also alleged.

“Our overarching concern today is that there is no clear limiting principle that would prevent experts across the board from becoming liable when their professional opinions cause delays in proceedings,” the ruling states. “We are deeply concerned that this liability would chill or suppress honest and unfettered expert opinions, which have significant societal value.”