Estimated read time: 6-7 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — In 1997, April Atwater said she accused her OB-GYN, David Broadbent, of misconduct and abuse, but nothing was done and he continued practicing. She said she doesn't know where her complaint went.
Atwater is one of almost 100 women whose case against Broadbent was heard before the Utah Supreme Court on Friday. She said it is important to her for the civil case against him to move forward because she doesn't want to see any abuse happen again.
"That many people could have avoided going through what I went through if someone had listened to what I said back then," she said.
Why the lawsuit was dismissed
The women claim in a lawsuit they were sexually assaulted and harassed while getting medical care from Broadbent, a Provo OB-GYN. The lawsuit says he made insensitive, offensive and inappropriate remarks — often sexual in nature — performed unnecessary intimate exams, and used his hands to touch them in sensitive areas for his own gratification when not medically necessary.
Their case was dismissed by the 4th District Court just over a year ago when Judge Robert Lunnen ruled in favor of the OB-GYN and health care organizations.
The judge agreed the events described in the complaint were "appalling," and that Broadbent's treatment of patients was "insensitive, disrespectful and degrading" — but said his ruling was based on the law, not his reactions to the allegations in the lawsuit. He said the issues raised should be part of a medical malpractice suit so he did not have jurisdiction over the issues raised.
Atwater said that ruling was "very upsetting" and felt dismissive to her. She appreciated the detailed questions asked by the Utah Supreme Court on Friday that showed the justices are seriously considering the case. She expressed appreciation that the justices were thoughtful and said it makes the plaintiffs feel "seen and heard."
The attorneys for the women, from the law firm Gross & Rooney, say filing the case as a medical malpractice case would mean the statute of limitations for many of the women will have passed and their claims would not move forward. But that is not the only reason they chose to file the case as a civil lawsuit. They argue the case is a sexual abuse case and should be treated as abuse regardless of where the alleged sexual abuse happened.
Health care vs. sexual abuse
Attorney Terence Rooney told the Supreme Court judges that Lunnen made a mistake when labeling what happened to the women as "health care."
"That abuse is diametrically opposed to health care. … They are not intertwined in any way; they are distinct opposites," he told the justices.
He said the treatment was "under the guise of medical care," but it was not medical care. He said their clients are not complaining about medical care but about sexual abuse and harassment.
Intermountain Health and Mountainstar Healthcare are named in the lawsuit in addition to Broadbent, with claims for negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress, since some of the allegations center around Broadbent's actions while providing care at their facilities and the women say they filed reports.
Caroline Olsen, who represents Intermountain Health, argued on behalf of the defendants and was supported by attorneys for Broadbent and Mountainstar. She said under Rooney's reading of the law, much of what they think of as medical malpractice would be excluded because most of those lawsuits are not something that happens on behalf of the patient.
She said a doctor stealing a wallet rightfully would not be considered health care and require a medical malpractice lawsuit, but situations described in this case are related to gynecological care, and touching sexual body parts is part of the care. Olsen said every patient who filed this case agreed to medical care from Broadbent.
This case changed Utah's medical malpractice law, which now specifies that it does not cover sexual assault. But the change is not retroactive, so these plaintiffs have to argue under the 1976 law. Rooney argued sexual assault was never intended to be included and the Utah Legislature was simply clarifying the law.
"I don't think when you clarify something it needs to be retroactive," he said.
Rooney argued that under criminal statute, if sexual abuse is perpetrated "under the guise of medical care" then it is not considered to be done with consent.
In his arguments before the high court, Rooney said the case represents 94 women, but attorney Adam Sorenson said, in total, the attorneys represent 130 women who have made similar claims and believe there are 50 more women who could make legal claims.
Many of those women who allege abuse from Broadbent, and people who support them gathered in the courtroom, filing the plaintiffs' side, wearing teal in support of sexual harassment and abuse victims.
"There're a lot of people this affects. It goes way beyond the people that are named in this complaint," Sorenson said. "This is trying to change Utah law, yes, for 94 people named in a complaint, but for everyone that comes after this."
After the hearing, Sorenson and Rooney talked to the women and other supporters on the steps of the Matheson Courthouse and told them what to expect. Sorenson said they don't believe Broadbent is still practicing, and that he is no longer allowed to practice at Intermountain or MountainStar facilities. Rooney encouraged the women to reach out to the Utah County Attorney's Office to ask why no criminal charges have been filed against Broadbent, despite at least 30 reports being filed.
Women find support from one another
Stephanie Mateer was one of the first to publicize her experience with Broadbent and said reading reviews from others helped her have the courage to stand up. She said getting together with other plaintiffs Thursday evening and at Friday's hearing helped her feel strength.
As she listened to the arguments and questions from the justices, at first she said she was stressed. But as the hearing moved on, she became more confident that the court would rule in her favor.
"They know, as well as we do, that sexual assault is not health care," she said.
Mateer said Utah County prosecutors have not given them a reason for not filing any criminal charges, but she believes that needs to happen.
Ashton Sorenson said she connected with Mateer after hearing her speak about her experience in a podcast. After hearing how many women were affected in this case, she reached out to her brother Adam Sorenson to see if a lawsuit could be a possibility.
She said the lawsuit has been triggering and painful for her. She went into Broadbent's office with a question that she said she did not feel merited any physical exam but she was still asked to undress completely, put on a robe and then received a full body examination — although she said she wouldn't call it a medical exam.
"It was very invasive and very painful and (there was) little to no information about what was going on," she recalled.
Sorenson said she felt "absolutely violated" coming out of that appointment, but later second-guessed some of those feelings as she spoke to a friend who said the experience could be awkward. Now with more experiences with doctors and after having a child, she believes what Broadbent did was "absolutely insane."
She said it took many women time to realize what happened to them. At age 21, she hadn't had many experiences with an OBG-YN. Now, she said, in the minds of all of these women, there is a clear distinction between what is medically necessary health care and what is sexual abuse.
