 |
 |
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
t stated, "If the expert is not from the locality where the alleged malpractice occurred, the expert is not precluded from testifying but must demonstrate an adequate familiarity with local standards. Clarke v. Prenger, 114 Idaho 766, 760 P.2d 1182 (1988). This familiarity must be site and time specific. Gubler v. Boe, 120 Idaho 294, 815 P.2d 1034 (1991)."
The time specificity issue addressed in Gubler v. Boe, in Kozlowski v. Rush, and in Watts v. Lynn was not simply made up by this Court. It is required by Idaho Code §§ 6-1012 and 6-1013, which specify the requirements for laying the foundation for expert medical testimony in a medical malpractice case. Idaho Code § 6-1013 provides, in part, that "such expert testimony may only be admitted in evidence if the foundation therefore is first laid establishing . . . that the expert witness possesses . . . actual knowledge of the applicable said community standard to which his or her expert testimony is addressed." The "applicable said community standard" is specified in Idaho Code § 6-1012 as "the applicable standard of health care practice of the community in which such care allegedly was or should have been provided, as such standard existed at the time and place of the alleged negligence." (Emphasis added.) The requirement that the medical expert have knowledge of the standard of care as it existed at the time of the alleged negligence is statutory. Thus, even if this Court had not addressed the issue in the three above-mentioned prior cases, the requirement is based upon the applicable statutes.
|