national standard in Idaho

26 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2025 5 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.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
Buck v. St. Clairgreen idaho · 1985 · cited in 9 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1992–2023 2 sentences 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). 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).	5	9
Kozlowski v. Rushgreen idaho · 1992 · cited in 8 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1994–2025 2 sentences 2023“By virtue of their training, board-certified specialists are familiar with the local standard of care which is equivalent to the national standard of care.” Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825, 828 , 828 P.2d 854, 857 (1992) (quoting Buck v. St. 2023“By virtue of their training, board-certified specialists are familiar with the local standard of care which is equivalent to the national standard of care.” Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825, 828 , 828 P.2d 854, 857 (1992) (quoting Buck v. St.	5	8
Perry v. Magic Valley Regional Medical Centergreen idaho · 2000 · cited in 8 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2002–2025 2 sentences 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 ). 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 ).	5	8
Strode v. Lenzigreen idaho · 1989 · cited in 5 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1992–2007 2 sentences 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. 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. Smithgreen idaho · 2002 · cited in 4 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2005–2023 2 sentences 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). 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
David Samples v. Dr. Ray W. Hansongreen idaho · 2016 · cited in 4 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021“For board- certified specialists, the local standard of care is equivalent to the national standard of care.” Samples v. Hanson, 161 Idaho 179, 184 , 384 P.3d 943, 948 (quoting Buck v. St. 2021“For board- certified specialists, the local standard of care is equivalent to the national standard of care.” Samples v. Hanson, 161 Idaho 179, 184 , 384 P.3d 943, 948 (quoting Buck v. St.	3	4
Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Centergreen idaho · 2002 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2006–2011 2 sentences 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 )). 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
Rhodehouse v. Stuttsgreen idaho · 1994 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2025 2 sentences 2011Although the Court acknowledged that such a review 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 deposition “never stated that the local standard of care was the same as the national standard, nor in fact did [the defendant-doctor] make any direct reference to the local standard of care.” 8 Id. 2011Although the Court acknowledged that such a review 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 deposition "never stated that the local standard of care was the same as the national standard, nor in fact did [the defendant-doctor] make any direct reference to the local standard of care." [8] Id.	1	2
Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc.green scotus · 1996 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020In 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 CAREgreen idaho · 2007 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 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 .”). 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. Lynngreen idaho · 1994 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994Watts 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

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Grimes v. Green green idaho · 1987 2 sentences 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). 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).	3	1996–2020
SUHADOLNIK v. Pressman green idaho · 2011 2 sentences 2016Immediately following the portion of the Suho dolnik opinion quoted by Mrs. Morrison, we stated, “Specifically, an out-of-area expert can demonstrate familiarity with a local standard by speaking to a local specialist and by reviewing deposition testimony that establishes that the local standard is governed by a national standard.” Id. at 117 , 254 P.3d at 18 . 2016Immediately following the portion of the Suho dolnik opinion quoted by Mrs. Morrison, we stated, “Specifically, an out-of-area expert can demonstrate familiarity with a local standard by speaking to a local specialist and by reviewing deposition testimony that establishes that the local standard is governed by a national standard.” Id. at 117 , 254 P.3d at 18 .	2	2016–2020
Hayward v. Jack's Pharmacy Inc. green idaho · 2005 2 sentences 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). 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
Mattox v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. green idaho · 2014 2 sentences 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). 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 idaho · 2016 2 sentences 2020Id. 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 idaho · 2016 2 sentences 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. 2020Rather, “[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.	1	2020–2020
McDaniel v. Inland Northwest Renal Care Group-Idaho, LLC neutral idaho · 2007 2 sentences 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 .”). 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	2011–2011
Frank v. East Shoshone Hospital green idaho · 1988 2 sentences 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). 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 idaho · 1946 2 sentences 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. 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 dc · 1979 2 sentences 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. 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 cadc · 1977 2 sentences 1987(See also Robbins v. Footer, 553 F.2d 123 (D.C. 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

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 6-1012 (25) ID § Idaho Code § 6-1013 (23) ID § Idaho Code § 12-121 (17) ID § Idaho Code § 6-1001 (3) ID § Idaho Code § 6-1005 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

DC 42 (1967–2023) TN 41 (1967–2022) CA 27 (1941–2022) NC 27 (1948–2026) ID 26 (1987–2025) TX 23 (1972–2023) IL 23 (1943–2017) NY 22 (1904–2025) LA 21 (1943–2026) MI 20 (1972–2024) MS 18 (1986–2026) CT 18 (1965–2016) AL 17 (1970–2026) WA 17 (1967–2025) PA 17 (1938–2024) RI 12 (1970–2015) MT 11 (1981–2024) FL 10 (1941–2017) NJ 8 (1964–2019) UT 8 (1938–2024) GA 8 (1947–2009) CO 8 (1944–2008) MO 8 (1965–2022) AR 7 (1943–2026) AZ 7 (1968–2025) MA 7 (1980–2023) OH 6 (1971–2022) OR 6 (1966–2024) HI 5 (1991–2024) MD 5 (1960–2013) OK 5 (1946–2026) VA 5 (1974–2004) NM 4 (1970–2025) WV 4 (1982–2020) KS 4 (1966–2013) IN 4 (1971–2002) NE 4 (1980–2024) WI 3 (1963–1994) SD 3 (1989–2014) MN 3 (1977–2017) DE 3 (1992–1999) NV 2 (1988–1989) AK 2 (1978–1991) WY 2 (2002–2003) SC 2 (1984–1993)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check