 |
 |
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
Smith gave his opinion that the patient should not have been discharged from the Emergency Department if she could not walk.
Dr. Mengert stated that in his opinion, the complaints related to this case "are applicable to any Emergency Department within the United States of America. Though I don't have practice knowledge from those other environments, I think what took place was outside the standard of care of modern Emergency Medicine practice." Dr. Mengert testified that in his opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Dr. Holland breached the standard of care applicable to him as an emergency room physician practicing in Boise in August of 1994 with respect to his care of Anna Dulaney. Dr. Mengert felt that this duty was breached because: 1) Dr. Holland did not adequately assess Dulaney's chief complaint of leg weakness and numbness; 2) it is the obligation of the emergency room physician to assume the worst case scenario - in this case a spinal cord problem; and 3) the patient did not feel better after receiving the emergency room care.
The district court found Dr. Mengert's testimony to be inadmissible because:
e failed to adequately familiarize himself with the standards and practices of emergency room physicians in Boise in August of 1994. Dr. Mengert consulted with Dr. Smith, an internist at a Boise hospital, at the VA hospital. There was no evidence that Dr. Smith was himself familiar with the local standard of care for ER physicians practicing in Boise at the relevant time. Dr. Smith is a board certified ER physician, at least he was in April of 1999 when he gave his deposition. There is no evidence in the record that Dr. Smith was a practicing emergency room physician, nor a board certified emergency room physician in August of 1994.
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. This, together with an examination of I.C. §§ 6-1012, -1013, does not mandate the conclusion reached by the district court.
Idaho Code § 6-1012 provides in relevant part:
laintiff must, as an essential part of his or her case in chief, affirmatively prove by direct expert testimony and by a preponderance of all the competent evidence, that such defendant then and there negligently failed to meet 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 of such physician and surgeon, hospital or other such health care provider and as such standard then and there existed with respect to the class of health care provider that such defendant then and there belonged to and in which capacity he, she, or it was functioning. Such individual providers of health care shall be judged in such cases in comparison with similarly trained and qualified providers of the same class in the same community, taking into account his or her training, experience, and fields of medical specialization, if any. I.C. § 6-1012 (emphasis added).
In this case, Dr. Mengert contacted a physician, Dr. Smith, who shared the same board certification, Emergency Medicine, as the defendant doctor. This indicates that Dr. Smith was "a similarly trained and qualified provider of the same class in the same community," with similar training and field of medical specialization. The statute and case law do not require that the local physician practice in the same field.
Additionally, this Court has recognized at
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.
|
|