 |
 |
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
grant of summary judgment. The trial court noted that even if it did consider the supplemental affidavit of Dr. Stump, it was insufficient under I.C. §§ 6-1012, -1013 and I.R.C.P. 56(e) to create a genuine issue of material fact against any of the defendants.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In Kolln v. Saint Luke's Regional Medical Center, 130 Idaho 323, 940 P.2d 1142 (1997), this Court set forth the following standard of review:
When this Court reviews a district court's decision on summary judgment, it employs the same standard as that properly employed by the trial court when originally ruling on the motion. Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Finally, this Court liberally construes all disputed facts and will draw all reasonable inferences and conclusions supported by the record in favor of the party opposing the motion. This is the proper standard to be applied in medical malpractice actions as well.
. . . Our standard of review for a decision whether to admit expert testimony is clear: that decision is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be overturned except upon a showing of abuse of discretion. Id. at 327, 940 P.2d at 1146 (internal citations omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
A. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT DR. TERRY MENGERT HAD NOT ADEQUATELY FAMILIARIZED HIMSELF WITH THE LOCAL STANDARD OF CARE PURSUANT TO I.C. §§ 6-1012, -1013.
" he question of how to qualify an out-of-area physician to render an opinion in a medical malpractice case 'has plagued the bench and trial bar since the enactment of Idaho's statutory structure . . . requiring proof actual knowledge of the local standard of care.'" Keyser v. Garner, 129 Idaho 112, 117, 922 P.2d 409, 414 (Ct. App. 1996).
Two Idaho Code provisions are an essential part of the analysis pertaining to whether an expert's affidavit in a medical malpractice action can survive a summary judgment action. Kolln, 130 Idaho at 328-29, 940 P.2d at 1147-48. First, I.C. § 6-1012 requires that direct expert testimony establish the community standard of health care. Id.; I.C. § 6-1012. The expert must also testify that the health care provider did not meet the standard of care applicable to his or her particular field of health care and specialty. Id. The second section, I.C. § 6-1013, "requires that the expert must show that he or she actually holds the opinion, that it is held with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and that he or she is not only an expert but has actual knowledge of the applicable community standard." Id.
In regards to the relation between Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) and I.C. §§ 6-1012, -1013, this Court has noted, "the question of admissibility under Rule 56(e) is a threshold question to be analyzed before applying the liberal construction and reasonable inference rules required in summary judgment." Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 211, 868 P.2d 1224, 1227 (1994). Rule 56(e) sets forth the additional requirement that "the affidavits must 'set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.'" Id. at 212, 868 P.2d at 1228.
This Court, as well as the Court of Appeals, has addressed the constraints placed on the plaintiff's expert, noting that the requirements are not intended to be overly burdensome. Frank v. East Shoshone Hosp., 114 Idaho 480, 482, 757 P.2d 1199, 1201 (19
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.
|
|