 |
 |
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
88)(noting, "Our decision today does not cast an onerous burden on plaintiffs in medical malpractice actions. It is not an overly burdensome requirement to have an expert become familiar with the standard of care in the community where alleged malpractice is committed); Keyser, 129 Idaho at 117, 922 P.2d at 414.
This Court's interpretation of the requirements created by I.C. ยงยง 6-1012, -1013 was further elaborated in Clarke v. Prenger, 114 Idaho 766, 760 P.2d 1182 (1988). In that case, the Court explained:
We take this occasion to express our disapproval of what appears to be a growing practice among the trial courts of this state dismissing medical malpractice cases at the summary judgment point on the basis that plaintiffs' expert witnesses are not sufficiently familiar with the standard of care to be expected from defendant-physicians . . . . We do not view such burden as being onerous on plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases since ordinarily it only requires a positive indication that plaintiffs' expert witnesses possess the requisite knowledge of the local standard of care which has been allegedly violated. Unfortunately, plaintiffs' counsel too often are either unaware of the requirements of the summary judgment process, or fail to take their responsibilities seriously. On the other hand, it appears that some of our trial judges fail to recognize their obligation to construe not only the evidence before the court, but all reasonable inferences that flow therefrom, most favorably to the non-moving party. Id. at 768, 760 P.2d at 1184.
This Court has also addressed whether or not the plaintiff's expert must be of the same specialty as the defendant physician. The Court in Clarke expressly rejected this contention:
Recognizing the complexity of knowledge required in the various medical specialties, more than a casual familiarity with the specialty of the defendant's physician is required. The witness must demonstrate a knowledge acquired from experience or study of the standards of the specialty of the defendant physician sufficient to enable him to give an expert opinion as to the conformity of the defendant's conduct to those particular standards, and not to the standards of the witness's particular specialty if it differs from that of the defendant. It is the scope of the witness's knowledge and not the artificial classification by title that should govern the threshold question of admissibility. Of the decisions in other jurisdictions which have discussed this issue, this appears to be the decided majority view. Id. at 769, 760 P.2d at 1185 (quoting Fitzmaurice v. Flynn, 356 A.2d 887 (Conn. 1975)).
In this case, Dr. Terry Mengert, a physician from Washington state, testified in his deposition that he was Board Certified in both Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine. Dr. Mengert practiced as a full-time attending physician in the Emergency Department at the University of Washington. Dr. Mengert testified that in order to gain familiarity with the local standard of care, he first contacted a physician in Boise. This physician refused to cooperate because of the "small community" in Boise.
Next, Dr. Mengert contacted a personal acquaintance, Dr. Scott Smith, who practices at the Boise Veterans Administration Hospital. Although Dr. Smith is board certified in both Emergency Medicine and Internal Medicine, his current practice is in Internal Medicine. According to Dr. Mengert, he described the symptoms that Dulaney suffered and the treatment Dulaney received at St. Alphonsus. He then asked Dr. Smith if, in his opinion as a practicing Boise physician, the treatment Dulaney received was within the standard of care in that environment. Dr.
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.
|
|