 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hayward v. Valley Vista Care Corp.9/28/2001
Howard, 52 Idaho 412, 16 P.2d 661 (1932). In that case, the Court noted:
he basic allegations of the complaint are directed solely to carelessness, negligence and misconduct as the proximate cause of the injury claimed to have been suffered. Respondent is not arraigned for breach of contract but for delinquencies incidental to its performance. As alleged, these are the very foundation of the action, and if true, constituted nothing but malpractice. The gist of a malpractice action is negligence, not a breach of the contract of employment. Id. at 415-16, 16 P.2d at 662.
In a more recent Idaho case, this Court examined a claim brought by a patient who was injured when she fell off a balance board utilized by her physical therapist to promote ankle strengthening. Hough, 131 Idaho at 232, 953 P.2d at 982. The appellant, Hough, originally pursued a malpractice claim against the therapist. Id. Later, she moved to amend her complaint to allege ordinary negligence. Id. The appellant argued that I.C.§ 6-1012 does not apply in cases of "ordinary negligence" where "the act complained of requires no specialized skill or knowledge." Id. at 233, 953 P.2d at 983.
The Court ultimately rejected Hough's argument, noting that physical therapy is a type of medical care specifically covered by I.C. § 6-1012. Id. Further, the Court found, "Thus, to determine if I.C. § 6-1012 applies, courts need only look to see if the injury occurred on account of the provision of or failure to provide health care." Id. The Court explained, "The language of the statute clearly treats the provision of health care as a single act and not a series of steps, each of which must be analyzed to determine if it involved professional judgment." Id.
In the case currently before the Court, the district court found that I.C. § 6-1012 precluded Alfred from bringing a claim based on a breach of contract theory. The district court noted that the claims were for malpractice, regardless of the label assigned to them.
We agree. The basis of Alfred's remaining state court claims pertain to "the provision of or failure to provide health care." Consequently, I.C. § 6-1012 and the language set forth in Hough, preclude Alfred from bringing a contract claim against the nursing home. The district court's grant of summary judgment on Alfred's remaining state court claims is affirmed.
C. NONE OF THE PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY FEES ON APPEAL.
Alfred, as the prevailing party, is the only party who potentially may be entitled to attorney fees. Alfred cites to the fee provision found in I.C. § 12-120(3), the code provision pertaining to the recovery of fees "in any civil action to recover on . . . contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods . . . or services."
Actions alleging malpractice are tort actions and "even though the underlying transaction which resulted in the malpractice was a 'commercial transaction,' attorney fees under 12-120(3) are not authorized." Fuller v. Wolters, 119 Idaho 415, 425, 807 P.2d 633, 643 (1991). We hold that since Alfred's "contract" claims are really malpractice actions, attorney fees should not be granted.
Alfred does not cite to any other statutory provision that would enable him to recover attorney fees. Consequently, attorney fees are not awarded.
IV. CONCLUSION
The district court erred in denying Alfred's motion to amend the state court complaint to add the wrongful death claim because I.R.C.P. 15(c) and 17(a) provide Alfred with a manner in which to substitute a real party in interest and then relate the amendment back to the date of the original complaint. Consequently, the distri
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|