A women's healthcare provider in Utah is facing serious trouble after a previously dismissed lawsuit filed against him by nearly 100 former patients alleging sexual misconduct was revived.

A district court had dismissed the suit against obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. David Broadbent on a purported technicality, but the Utah Supreme Court just unanimously overruled the lower court's decision and instead determined that the lawsuit can proceed, KUTV reported.

That ruling comes less than two months after Broadbent, 77, was criminally charged for one of the several dozen alleged acts of sexual abuse and assault that, per his accusers, occurred over several decades.

Lawsuit initially dismissed on technicality

According to KUTV, it was in February 2022 that some of Dr. Broadbent's alleged victims began to come forward with their horror stories of how he sexually abused and assaulted them during medical exams, and before long nearly 100 of his former patients had joined together to file a lawsuit against him and the hospitals he previously worked at.

However, in September 2022, Broadbent's attorneys asserted that the claims against their client, because they allegedly occurred in the context of his provision of health care, should have been filed as a medical malpractice suit. As such, the action would fall under the various requirements of the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act.

District Judge Robert Lunnen was persuaded and ruled that "there is no material dispute that all of the events alleged ... occurred during medical examinations." Thus, the complaints against the doctor were classified as a medical malpractice issue, and because the former patients had not complied with the Act's pre-litigation requirements, the lawsuit was dismissed.

Lawsuit revived by Supreme Court's reversal of dismissal

The collection of former patients appealed the dismissal and, after arguing their case before the Utah Supreme Court nearly a year ago in October 2023, were finally rewarded with a legal victory on Thursday in the form of the high court's unanimous decision to reverse the district court's ruling.

In a 16-page opinion, Justice Paige Petersen observed that the plaintiffs "argue that their claims are not subject to the Malpractice Act, so they were not required to comply with its prelitigation requirements," and noted, "We agree with the Plaintiffs that their claims are not covered by the Malpractice Act."

Citing the state's definition of what constitutes malpractice in the context of the provision of health care, the justice wrote, "Here, the Plaintiffs do not allege they were injured by any health care that Broadbent may have provided them. Rather, they allege that he abused his position as their doctor to sexually assault them under the pretense of providing health care."

"The point of their claims is that his actions were not really health care at all," she continued. "And the fact that Broadbent committed the alleged sexual assaults during medical appointments or examinations does not bring that conduct within the Malpractice Act’s definition of health care because the Plaintiffs allege Broadbent’s abusive conduct had no medical purpose and was outside the scope of any legitimate health care he provided them."

"Accordingly, we conclude that the Malpractice Act does not apply to the Plaintiffs’ claims because they have not brought an action 'based upon alleged personal injuries relating to or arising out of health care rendered' by Broadbent," Petersen added. "We therefore reverse the district court’s dismissal of the Complaint."

Criminal charges filed, medical license restricted

The Utah Supreme Court's opinion included a sampling of the disturbing allegations of sexual abuse and assault against Dr. Broadbent by at least 94 of his former patients that are purported to have occurred over four decades at two separate hospitals and his private clinic.

On June 27, Broadbent was finally charged over one of those allegations by the Utah County Attorney's Office -- a reported incident that occurred in July 2020 that involved alleged inappropriate touching of a patient without consent, for which he faces a single second-degree felony count of forcible sexual abuse.

Just days later, on June 30, the doctor's medical license was "voluntarily limited," and his ability to provide healthcare restricted, pending several conditions that, if the allegations that are now the subject of multiple ongoing investigations are true, he will likely be unable to meet to have his license restored instead of revoked.