Harline claims defendants failed to amend his schedules such that his profit-sharing plan could be considered and found exempt. This claim has no merit. The bankruptcy court subsequently allowed the schedules to be amended and the profit-sharing issue was considered on the merits. 2 . Defendants for the first time on appeal claim summary judgment was appropriate because Harline failed to produce expert testimony that defendants had breached their standard of care. Wycalis v. Guardian Title, 780 P.2d 821, 826 n. 8 (Utah App.1989), cert, denied, 789 P.2d 33 (1990) (acknowledging expert testimony must ordinarily be presented to establish standard of care in cases dealing with duties owed by a particular profession); see also Brown v. Small, 251 Mont. 414, 825 P.2d 1209, 1212 (1992) (<HOLDING>). We refuse to consider this issue for the
holding that allowing the statute of limitations to run on the clients claim is an example of obvious malpractice that does not require expert testimony to establish a standard of care holding expert testimony not required to defeat summary judgment in medical malpractice suit because defendant doctors admissions were sufficient to establish the standard of care holding expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care holding that a manufacturers insert in and of itself may not establish the relevant standard of care in a medical negligence action but may be considered by the fact finder along with expert testimony to define the standard of care