 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Regional Medicial Center8/7/2001
al standard of care was sufficient to withstand a summary judgment challenge under I.C. §§ 6-1012 and -1013. It is clear from the transcript of the summary judgment hearing in Clarke that neither the attorneys nor the district judge mentioned the requirements of Rule 56 . . . . Unlike Clarke, the issue in the case at bar is not whether Jenkins' affidavit is sufficient to withstand a summary judgment challenge under I.C. §§ 6-1012 and -1013, although that admittedly was the only basis for respondent's objection at the time of the hearing. Rather, based upon the trial judge's comments and rulings, the present case involves the threshold issue of admissibility of evidence under Rule 56(e). The trial court found that Jenkins' affidavit did not present sufficient facts admissible in evidence to demonstrate affirmatively that he was familiar with the local standard of care. Because the court found Jenkins' affidavit was not admissible evidence under Rule 56(e), we do not reach the requirements imposed by § 6-1013 which were considered in Clarke.
The difference between the standard for laying the foundation for the admissibility of expert testimony and the standard for assessing the sufficiency of admitted expert testimony is significant.
When determining whether a motion for summary judgment should be granted, all disputed facts are to be liberally construed in favor of the non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences that can be made from the record shall be made in favor of the party resisting the motion. Curtis v. Firth, 123 Idaho 598, 850 P.2d 749 (1993). The liberal construction and reasonable inferences analysis does not apply, however, to the admissibility of statements made in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. Kolln v. Saint Luke's Regional Medical Center, 130 Idaho 323, 940 P.2d 1142 (1997). " he question of admissibility under Rule 56(e) is a threshold question to be analyzed before applying the liberal construction and reasonable inferences rules required in motions for summary judgment." Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 211, 868 P.2d 1224, 1227 (1994). Thus, the majority's reliance upon Clarke v. Prenger is misplaced. That case did not address the requirements for the admissibility of expert medical testimony. It dealt with the sufficiency of testimony that, for the purposes of summary judgment, had been deemed admitted.
Rather than requiring the plaintiff to show affirmatively that her experts are competent to testify, the majority holds that the experts are competent unless the defense shows that they are not. Thus, with respect to Dr. Mengert's testimony, the majority states, "The record does not contain any evidence that the local standards applicable to a physician practicing in emergency room medicine would differ significantly from the standards applicable to a physician practicing in internal medicine." Likewise, with respect to Dr. Stump's testimony, the majority states, "In addition, it is relevant that the record is void of evidence to suggest that a neurologist has different training and experience than an emergency room physician or an Internal Medicine doctor." In making these statements, the majority confuses the distinction between the requirement of laying a foundation sufficient to show that expert testimony is admissible and the liberal construction of evidence once it is deemed admitted. This confusion is shown by the majority's statement, "We hold that the district court erred in finding Dr. Mengert's testimony to be inadmissible. The standard to be applied in this Court's review of a grant of summary judgment compels this Court to construe all facts liberally in favor of the non-moving party." The correct standard to be appl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|