Frank v. East Shoshone Hospital

757 P.2d 1199, 114 Idaho 480, 1988 Ida. LEXIS 72

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Decided: July 11, 1988
• Docket: 16648
• Status: Published

Opinions

BISTLINE, Justice.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs-appellants Frank from a summary judgment in favor of defendant-respondent Faith in an action alleging medical malpractice. The district court granted summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs’ expert was not familiar with the local or community standard as mandated by I.C. § 6-1013(e). We .affirm.

Plaintiffs alleged medical malpractice arising from the treatment Mrs. Frank received from Dr. Faith at the East Shoshone Hospital for a broken ankle. Dr. Faith moved for summary judgment, contending that plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Blaisdell, was not familiar with the standard of care in the region known as the Silver Valley in northern Idaho. The motion was granted.¹

Idaho Code § 6-1013(c) states that in any medical malpractice case, plaintiff “must” establish “that such expert witness possesses professional knowledge and expertise coupled with actual knowledge of the applicable said community standard to which his or her expert testimony is addressed” (emphasis added).² The deposition testimony of plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Blaisdell, however, fails to establish that Dr. Blaisdell was familiar with the local standard of care at the East Shoshone Hospital. The record provides:

Q. [By defendant’s counsel] You haven’t discussed the standard of care in particular with any doctors that practice in that area?

A. [By Dr. Blaisdell] No sir.

Q. Okay. You’re not familiar with the emergency room procedures at the East Shoshone Hospital that were in effect in February of 1982 are you?

A. Not in any detail, no sir.

Deposition of Dr. Blaisdell, p. 61. Consequently, we agree with the trial court that as a matter of law plaintiffs’ expert was not familiar with the applicable standard of care.

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. In Buck v. St. Clair, 108 Idaho 743, 746, 702 P.2d 781, 784 (1985), the expert became familiar with the local standard of care by simply questioning a local doctor.³ Furthermore, I.C. § 6-1013(c) provides that nothing shall prohibit a competent expert witness who resides elsewhere from adequately familiarizing him or herself with the applicable local standard of care.⁴

Thus, because the requirement of I.C. § 6-1013(c) is not a crushing burden, we decline to judicially abrogate the legislature’s decision to require that each and every malpractice expert be or become familiar with the local standard of care.

Affirmed. Costs to defendants.

HUNTLEY, J., and TOWLES, J., pro tem., concur.

1 . Our scope of appellate review is limited to determining only whether there exist genuine issues of material fact and whether the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Gro-Mor, Inc. v. Butts, 109 Idaho 1020, 712 P.3d 721 (Ct.App.1985).

2 . Idaho Code § 6-1013 provides in full: Testimony of expert witness on community standard. — The applicable standard of practice and such a defendant’s failure to meet said standard must be established in such cases by such a plaintiff by testimony of one (1) or more knowledgeable, competent expert witnesses, and such expert testimony may only be admitted in evidence if the foundation therefor is first laid, establishing (a) that such an opinion is actually held by the expert witness, (b) that the said opinion can be testified to with reasonable medical certainty, and (c) that such expert witness possesses professional knowledge and expertise coupled with actual knowledge of the applicable said community standard to which his or her expert opinion testimony is addressed; provided, this section shall not be construed to prohibit or otherwise preclude a competent expert witness who resides elsewhere from adequately familiarizing himself with the standards and practices of (a particular) such area and thereafter giving opinion testimony in such a trial.

3 . Although the Buck decision was subsequently limited and clarified in Grimes v. Green, 113 Idaho 519, 746 P.2d 978 (1987), the above noted point of law was not.

4 . See note 2, supra.