Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
28 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Perry v. Magic Valley Regional Medical Centergreen2 sentences2023One way an expert may inquire into whether the local standard deviates from the national standard “is to review a deposition of a local specialist who states ‘that the local standard does not vary from the national standard, coupled with the [reviewing] expert’s personal knowledge of the national standard[.]’” Phillips, 166 Idaho at 748, 463 P.3d at 382 (emphasis added) (quoting Perry, 134 Idaho at 51 , 995 P.2d at 821 ). 2023One way an expert may inquire into whether the local standard deviates from the national standard “is to review a deposition of a local specialist who states ‘that the local standard does not vary from the national standard, coupled with the [reviewing] expert’s personal knowledge of the national standard[.]’” Phillips, 166 Idaho at 748, 463 P.3d at 382 (emphasis added) (quoting Perry, 134 Idaho at 51 , 995 P.2d at 821 ). | 8 | 8 |
Buck v. St. Clairgreen2 sentences2026Second, the out-of-area expert “must inquire of the local standard in order to insure there are no local deviations from the national standard under which the defendant-physician and witness-physician were trained.” Id. (quoting Buck, 108 Idaho at 746 , 702 P.2d at 784 ). 2026Second, the out-of-area expert “must inquire of the local standard in order to insure there are no local deviations from the national standard under which the defendant-physician and witness-physician were trained.” Id. (quoting Buck, 108 Idaho at 746 , 702 P.2d at 784 ). | 7 | 10 |
Kozlowski v. Rushgreen2 sentences2026However, we continued to explain “[t]hat is not to say that the [h]ospital’s policy statement cannot help inform [an expert’s] understanding of the community standard of care, but it does not provide enough on its own to determine whether the ANA standards were the community standard of care.” Id. at 882 , 477 P.3d at 936 ; see also Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825, 830 , 828 P.2d 854, 859 (1992) (concluding that an out-of-area expert’s testimony was supported by sufficient foundation when the expert testified that he was familiar with a national standard of care and had reviewed the depositio 2026However, we continued to explain “[t]hat is not to say that the [h]ospital’s policy statement cannot help inform [an expert’s] understanding of the community standard of care, but it does not provide enough on its own to determine whether the ANA standards were the community standard of care.” Id. at 882 , 477 P.3d at 936 ; see also Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825, 830 , 828 P.2d 854, 859 (1992) (concluding that an out-of-area expert’s testimony was supported by sufficient foundation when the expert testified that he was familiar with a national standard of care and had reviewed the depositio | 7 | 10 |
Phillips v. Eastern ID Health Svcsgreen2 sentences2026Still, “for board-certified specialists, the local standard of care is equivalent to the national standard of care.” Dlouhy, 167 Idaho at 646 , 474 P.3d at 718 (quoting Phillips, 166 Idaho at 747, 463 P.3d at 381). 2026Still, “for board-certified specialists, the local standard of care is equivalent to the national standard of care.” Dlouhy, 167 Idaho at 646 , 474 P.3d at 718 (quoting Phillips, 166 Idaho at 747, 463 P.3d at 381). | 4 | 6 |
David Samples v. Dr. Ray W. Hansongreen2 sentences2026Second, the out-of-area expert “must inquire of the local standard in order to insure there are no local deviations from the national standard under which the defendant-physician and witness-physician were trained.” Id. (quoting Buck, 108 Idaho at 746 , 702 P.2d at 784 ). 2026Heath points to language from Phillips and Summerfield, originating in Buck, stating that, “for board-certified specialists, the local standard of care is equivalent to the national standard of care.” Summerfield, 169 Idaho at 230, 494 P.3d at 778 (citation modified) (quoting Samples, 161 Idaho at 184 , 384 P.3d at 948 ); Phillips, 166 Idaho at 747 , 463 P.3d at 381 (quoting Buck, 108 Idaho at 745 , 702 P.2d at 783 ). | 4 | 5 |
Strode v. Lenzigreen2 sentences2007At a minimum, an out-of-state expert making such a claim is required to "inquire of a local specialist to determine whether the local community standard varies from the national standard." Id. 2007At a minimum, an out-of-state expert making such a claim is required to “inquire of a local specialist to determine whether the local community standard varies from the national standard.” Id. | 4 | 5 |
Grover v. Smithgreen2 sentences2023This review must be coupled with the expert’s personal knowledge of the national standard.” Grover v. Smith, 137 Idaho 247, 251 , 46 P.3d 1105, 1109 (2002) (emphasis added) (quoting Perry, 134 Idaho at 51-52, 995 P.2d at 821– 22). 2023This review must be coupled with the expert’s personal knowledge of the national standard.” Grover v. Smith, 137 Idaho 247, 251 , 46 P.3d 1105, 1109 (2002) (emphasis added) (quoting Perry, 134 Idaho at 51-52, 995 P.2d at 821– 22). | 4 | 4 |
Rhodehouse v. Stuttsgreen2 sentences2026The district court based its conclusion, in part, on this Court’s decision in Suhadolnik v. Pressman, 151 Idaho 110 , 254 P.3d 11 (2011), which discussed when an out-of-area expert may rely on deposition testimony to familiarize himself with the community standard of care: Although the Court acknowledged [in Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 212 , 868 P.2d 1224, 1228 (1994),] that [a review of another doctor’s deposition] might provide an adequate foundation for an expert’s knowledge of the local standard of care, it found the deposition in that case to be insufficient because the depositio 2026The district court based its conclusion, in part, on this Court’s decision in Suhadolnik v. Pressman, 151 Idaho 110 , 254 P.3d 11 (2011), which discussed when an out-of-area expert may rely on deposition testimony to familiarize himself with the community standard of care: Although the Court acknowledged [in Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 212 , 868 P.2d 1224, 1228 (1994),] that [a review of another doctor’s deposition] might provide an adequate foundation for an expert’s knowledge of the local standard of care, it found the deposition in that case to be insufficient because the depositio | 2 | 3 |
SUHADOLNIK v. Pressmangreen2 sentences2026The district court based its conclusion, in part, on this Court’s decision in Suhadolnik v. Pressman, 151 Idaho 110 , 254 P.3d 11 (2011), which discussed when an out-of-area expert may rely on deposition testimony to familiarize himself with the community standard of care: Although the Court acknowledged [in Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 212 , 868 P.2d 1224, 1228 (1994),] that [a review of another doctor’s deposition] might provide an adequate foundation for an expert’s knowledge of the local standard of care, it found the deposition in that case to be insufficient because the depositio 2026The district court based its conclusion, in part, on this Court’s decision in Suhadolnik v. Pressman, 151 Idaho 110 , 254 P.3d 11 (2011), which discussed when an out-of-area expert may rely on deposition testimony to familiarize himself with the community standard of care: Although the Court acknowledged [in Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 212 , 868 P.2d 1224, 1228 (1994),] that [a review of another doctor’s deposition] might provide an adequate foundation for an expert’s knowledge of the local standard of care, it found the deposition in that case to be insufficient because the depositio | 2 | 3 |
Dlouhy v. Kootenai Hospital Districtgreen2 sentences2026Still, “for board-certified specialists, the local standard of care is equivalent to the national standard of care.” Dlouhy, 167 Idaho at 646 , 474 P.3d at 718 (quoting Phillips, 166 Idaho at 747, 463 P.3d at 381). 2026Still, “for board-certified specialists, the local standard of care is equivalent to the national standard of care.” Dlouhy, 167 Idaho at 646 , 474 P.3d at 718 (quoting Phillips, 166 Idaho at 747, 463 P.3d at 381). | 2 | 2 |
Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Centergreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Grover, 137 Idaho at 251 , 46 P.3d at 1109 (“An out-of-state expert can become familiar with the local standard of care ... by ‘review of a deposition stating that the local standard does not vary from the national standard, coupled with the expert’s personal knowledge of the national standard.” (citing Perry, 134 Idaho at 51-52 , 995 P.2d at 821-22 )). 2011See, e.g., Grover, 137 Idaho at 251 , 46 P.3d at 1109 ("An out-of-state expert can become familiar with the local standard of care ... by `review of a deposition stating that the local standard does not vary from the national standard, coupled with the expert's personal knowledge of the national standard." (citing Perry, 134 Idaho at 51-52 , 995 P.2d at 821-22 )). | 2 | 2 |
Grimes v. Greengreen2 sentences2020See Buck, 108 Idaho at 746 , 702 P.2d at 784 ; Grimes v. Green, 113 Idaho 519 , 521-22, 746 P.2d 978 , 980-81 (1987) (implying that “the clear mandate of I.C. § 6-1012” requires evidence that the local standard of care does not deviate from the national standard of care before a defendant who is board certified can be held to the national standard). 2020See Buck, 108 Idaho at 746 , 702 P.2d at 784 ; Grimes v. Green, 113 Idaho 519 , 521-22, 746 P.2d 978 , 980-81 (1987) (implying that “the clear mandate of I.C. § 6-1012” requires evidence that the local standard of care does not deviate from the national standard of care before a defendant who is board certified can be held to the national standard). | 1 | 3 |
Summerfield v. St. Luke's McCallgreen2 sentences2026Heath points to language from Phillips and Summerfield, originating in Buck, stating that, “for board-certified specialists, the local standard of care is equivalent to the national standard of care.” Summerfield, 169 Idaho at 230, 494 P.3d at 778 (citation modified) (quoting Samples, 161 Idaho at 184 , 384 P.3d at 948 ); Phillips, 166 Idaho at 747 , 463 P.3d at 381 (quoting Buck, 108 Idaho at 745 , 702 P.2d at 783 ). 2026Heath points to language from Phillips and Summerfield, originating in Buck, stating that, “for board-certified specialists, the local standard of care is equivalent to the national standard of care.” Summerfield, 169 Idaho at 230, 494 P.3d at 778 (citation modified) (quoting Samples, 161 Idaho at 184 , 384 P.3d at 948 ); Phillips, 166 Idaho at 747 , 463 P.3d at 381 (quoting Buck, 108 Idaho at 745 , 702 P.2d at 783 ). | 1 | 1 |
Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc.green1 sentence2020In 1976, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) to create a national framework for the proper management of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste. 42 U.S.C. § 6901 ; Meghrig v. KFC W., Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 483 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
McDaniel v. Inland Northwest Renal Care Group-Idaho, LLCgreen2 sentences2011McDaniel, 144 Idaho at 223 , 159 P.3d at 860 (“Conclusory statements that an expert is familiar with the local standard because he is familiar with the national standard are insufficient to meet the requirement of Idaho Code § 6-1013 .”). 2011McDaniel, 144 Idaho at 223 , 159 P.3d at 860 (“Conclusory statements that an expert is familiar with the local standard because he is familiar with the national standard are insufficient to meet the requirement of Idaho Code § 6-1013 .”). | 1 | 1 |
Watts v. Lynngreen2 sentences1994Watts v. Lynn, 125 Idaho 341, 346 , 870 P.2d 1300, 1306 (1994). 1994Watts v. Lynn, 125 Idaho 341, 346 , 870 P.2d 1300, 1306 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hayward v. Jack's Pharmacy Inc.
green
2 sentences2007They further argue the district court’s finding, that Dr. Wish’s testimony regarding the national standard of care was inadmissible, is inconsistent with this Court’s holding in Hayward v. Jack’s Pharmacy Inc., 141 Idaho 622 , 115 P.3d 713 (2005). 2007They further argue the district court’s finding, that Dr. Wish’s testimony regarding the national standard of care was inadmissible, is inconsistent with this Court’s holding in Hayward v. Jack’s Pharmacy Inc., 141 Idaho 622 , 115 P.3d 713 (2005). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Fisk v. McDonald
green
2 sentences2026However, we continued to explain “[t]hat is not to say that the [h]ospital’s policy statement cannot help inform [an expert’s] understanding of the community standard of care, but it does not provide enough on its own to determine whether the ANA standards were the community standard of care.” Id. at 882 , 477 P.3d at 936 ; see also Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825, 830 , 828 P.2d 854, 859 (1992) (concluding that an out-of-area expert’s testimony was supported by sufficient foundation when the expert testified that he was familiar with a national standard of care and had reviewed the depositio 2026However, we continued to explain “[t]hat is not to say that the [h]ospital’s policy statement cannot help inform [an expert’s] understanding of the community standard of care, but it does not provide enough on its own to determine whether the ANA standards were the community standard of care.” Id. at 882 , 477 P.3d at 936 ; see also Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825, 830 , 828 P.2d 854, 859 (1992) (concluding that an out-of-area expert’s testimony was supported by sufficient foundation when the expert testified that he was familiar with a national standard of care and had reviewed the depositio | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Rich v. Hepworth Holzer
green
2 sentences2026Even so, “board-certified specialists are not automatically subject to the national standard of care by virtue of their certification,” Dlouhy, 167 Idaho at 646, 474 P.3d at 718 (citations omitted); instead, an out-of-area expert must still meet two elements to demonstrate their qualifications to “testify about the applicable national standard of care,” Rich v. Hepworth Holzer, LLP, 172 Idaho 696 , 710-11, 535 P.3d 1069 , 1083-84 (2023) (quoting Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825, 828 , 828 P.2d 854, 857 (1992)). 2026Even so, “board-certified specialists are not automatically subject to the national standard of care by virtue of their certification,” Dlouhy, 167 Idaho at 646, 474 P.3d at 718 (citations omitted); instead, an out-of-area expert must still meet two elements to demonstrate their qualifications to “testify about the applicable national standard of care,” Rich v. Hepworth Holzer, LLP, 172 Idaho 696 , 710-11, 535 P.3d 1069 , 1083-84 (2023) (quoting Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825, 828 , 828 P.2d 854, 857 (1992)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Mattox v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020In support of their position, they cite to Mattox v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., 157 Idaho 468 , 337 P.3d 627 (2014), and Suhadolnik v. Pressman, 151 Idaho 110 , 254 P.3d 11 (2011). 2020In support of their position, they cite to Mattox v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., 157 Idaho 468 , 337 P.3d 627 (2014), and Suhadolnik v. Pressman, 151 Idaho 110 , 254 P.3d 11 (2011). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Morrison v. St. Luke's Regional Medical Center, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 606 , 377 P.3d at 1069 . 2020Id. at 606 , 377 P.3d at 1069 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Lucia Navo v. Bingham Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences2020Rather, “[t]here is a marked difference 14 between regulations that govern the physical administration of health care services to patients and those that govern other aspects of a health care provider’s practice, such as organizational, personnel, and utilization requirements.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting McDaniel v. Inland Nw. 2020As a consequence, a national standard of care does not automatically become the community standard “simply because the federal government has created some general regulatory scheme for a given area of medicine.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Frank v. East Shoshone Hospital
green
2 sentences1996The Idaho Supreme Court found this inquiry sufficient to qualify the witness to testify. 6 The next pertinent decision is Frank v. East Shoshone Hospital, 114 Idaho 480 , 757 P.2d 1199 (1988). 1996The Idaho Supreme Court found this inquiry sufficient to qualify the witness to testify. 6 The next pertinent decision is Frank v. East Shoshone Hospital, 114 Idaho 480 , 757 P.2d 1199 (1988). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Clark v. Alloway
green
2 sentences1992This single local deviation from the national standard of care is not relevant in this case. [3] In Clark v. Alloway, 67 Idaho 32 , 170 P.2d 425 (1946), the Court did not reach the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow plaintiff's counsel to inquire whether any of the potential jurors were stockholders in insurance companies because that issue was not adequately addressed in the appellant's brief. 67 Idaho at 39 , 170 P.2d at 429 . [4] I.D.J.I. 101 could be easily modified to fit this type of case. 1992This single local deviation from the national standard of care is not relevant in this case. [3] In Clark v. Alloway, 67 Idaho 32 , 170 P.2d 425 (1946), the Court did not reach the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow plaintiff's counsel to inquire whether any of the potential jurors were stockholders in insurance companies because that issue was not adequately addressed in the appellant's brief. 67 Idaho at 39 , 170 P.2d at 429 . [4] I.D.J.I. 101 could be easily modified to fit this type of case. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Morrison v. MacNamara
green
2 sentences1987In Morrison v. MacNamara, 407 A.2d 555 (D.C.1979), the court addressed a similar situation, holding that where a national standard of care had been adopted, it was error requiring new trial to instruct that the jury look to the standard in the local community, as such an all-encompassing error effectively precluded the jury from considering the issue on the basis of the correct standard. 1987In Morrison v. MacNamara, 407 A.2d 555 (D.C. 1979), the court addressed a similar situation, holding that where a national standard of care had been adopted, it was error requiring new trial to instruct that the jury look to the standard in the local community, as such an all-encompassing error effectively precluded the jury from considering the issue on the basis of the correct standard. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Robbins v. Footer
green
2 sentences1987(See also Robbins v. Footer, 553 F.2d 123 (D.C.Cir.1977), wherein it was held that a trial court’s instructions to the jury indicating that the defendant’s conduct be compared only to practice within his own geographic community or that of a similar locality mandated a new trial where the defendant was a board-certified specialist and subject to a national standard of care. 1987(See also Robbins v. Footer, 553 F.2d 123 (D.C.Cir.1977), wherein it was held that a trial court’s instructions to the jury indicating that the defendant’s conduct be compared only to practice within his own geographic community or that of a similar locality mandated a new trial where the defendant was a board-certified specialist and subject to a national standard of care. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.