Utah Supreme Court Rules That Alleged Sexual Assault by a Doctor Is Not “Health Care”

Utah is among the states with the broadest definition of medical malpractice, covering any acts “arising” out of health care. The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that a teenage boy was receiving health care when he was allowed to climb a steep, snow-dusted rock outcrop as part of wilderness therapy. When he broke his leg, he could only sue for medical malpractice, so the case faced shorter filing deadlines and lower monetary caps. Similarly, the court has ruled that a boy harmed by another child while in foster care was also bound by medical malpractice law.

It really sounds like bad legislation over a bad judge to me.

Supreme Court judges get more latitude to decide that the laws themselves are nonsense. Lower level judges are more bound to the actual laws themselves. As a judge, your personal ethics matter, but only to an extent. You're ultimately supposed to be ruling based on the actual laws/precedent relevant to the case, even if you don't like it.

Immunity.

Haven't read the lower court opinion but I wouldn't be shocked if there was another past precedent on medical malpractice in the region that bound the judge under to make that outcome until a higher court could reverse them.