 |
 |
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
s claim, alleging that the treatment she received was negligently rendered and that she suffered damages as a result. She named St. Alphonsus, Dr. Waters, and Dr. Holland as defendants.
On January 5, 1998, defendant St. Alphonsus moved for summary judgment. St. Alphonsus argued that the emergency room staff was not negligent and that the physicians involved in the suit were independent contractors, as opposed to employees, and thus the hospital was not liable for their actions. The district court denied the summary judgment in part and granted it in part, finding that St. Alphonsus was not allowed to "contract away" liability for the acts of the physicians. On the issue of negligence on the part of the emergency room staff, the district court entered judgment in favor of St. Alphonsus. This grant of summary judgment is not at issue.
St. Alphonsus filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to reconsider on June 2, 1999. On June 3, 1999, defendants Holland and Waters moved for summary judgment, arguing that Dulaney failed to produce expert testimony as specified in I.C. ยงยง 6-1012, -1013. Specifically, the defendants argued that Dulaney's out-of-state experts, Dr. Mengert and Dr. Stump, failed to demonstrate the requisite familiarity with the standard of care for a practicing emergency room physician in Boise, Idaho, at the time Dulaney received treatment.
Defendant Holland also argued that the affidavit of Dr. Michael Carte, M.D., a Board Certified emergency room physician, supported the granting of summary judgment in favor of Holland. Dr. Carte practiced in Nampa for 20 years and had actual knowledge of the standard of care for practicing emergency room physicians in Boise at the time Holland treated Dulaney. Dr. Carte was of the opinion that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Holland's treatment of Dulaney met the standard of care.
Defendant Waters argued that even if Dulaney could produce competent testimony to support her claim of a breach of the standard of care, she presented insufficient evidence that Dr. Waters' conduct proximately caused or contributed to Dulaney's injuries.
A hearing was held on July 19, 1999, in order for the trial court to hear argument regarding the motions. Following the hearing, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
On August 6, 1999, Dulaney filed a motion for reconsideration based on a supplemental affidavit filed by Dr. Stump, as well as on additional deposition excerpts. The supplemental affidavit discussed how Stump consulted with an orthopedic physician who was a full professor of orthopedic medicine at a major university. The professor requested anonymity, although he expressed a willingness to reveal his identity to the trial judge, if necessary.
Dulaney argued that the supplemental affidavit provided further support for the fact that Stump had familiarized himself with the standard of care in Boise as to orthopedic physicians. Dulaney also argued that the affidavit of Lawrence G. Duff, a paralegal employed by a law firm representing Dulaney, further illustrated the difficulties that Dulaney experienced in obtaining an orthopedic physician familiar with the standard of care in Boise who was willing to consult with Stump. Further, Dulaney argued that both Dr. Stump and Dr. Mengert familiarized themselves with the local standard of care by reading the deposition transcripts of the defendant doctors.
In an order dated October 28, 1999, the district court denied Dulaney's motion for reconsideration. The judge noted that the supplemental affidavit did not establish sufficient new or additional facts for the court to reconsider its
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.
|
|