local community standard in Idaho

1993The “well-established concepts of medical malpractice” mentioned in Krueger , referred to the local community standard of health care practice contained in I.C. § 6-1012, which the Court said was similar to the standard contained in the disciplinary statute, and which the Court said “is merely a codification of already existing case law.” Id. at 580, 836 P.2d at 526 .

1992Clair, 108 Idaho 743 , 702 P.2d 781 (1985), the majority makes essentially a trial court analysis and concludes that Dr. Friedman made an adequate determination that the local standard of care did not deviate from the national standard of care, and therefore, Dr. Friedman possessed actual knowledge of the applicable local community standard required by I.C. § 6-1012.

1992Clair, 108 Idaho 743 , 702 P.2d 781 (1985), the majority makes essentially a trial court analysis and concludes that Dr. Friedman made an adequate determination that the local standard of care did not deviate from the national standard of care, and therefore, Dr. Friedman possessed actual knowledge of the applicable local community standard required by I.C. § 6-1012.

1991Strode v. Lenzi, 116 Idaho 214 , 775 P.2d 106 (1989) (out-of-state orthopedic surgeon was not competent to testify concerning applicable standard of care to orthopedic surgeon practicing in-state without first demonstrating that he possessed actual knowledge of applicable community standard); Dekker v. Magic Valley Reg. Medical Center, 115 Idaho 332 , 766 P.2d 1213 (1988); Buck v. St.

1991Strode v. Lenzi, 116 Idaho 214 , 775 P.2d 106 (1989) (out-of-state orthopedic surgeon was not competent to testify concerning applicable standard of care to orthopedic surgeon practicing in-state without first demonstrating that he possessed actual knowledge of applicable community standard); Dekker v. Magic Valley Reg. Medical Center, 115 Idaho 332 , 766 P.2d 1213 (1988); Buck v. St.

1991Strode v. Lenzi, 116 Idaho 214 , 775 P.2d 106 (1989) (out-of-state orthopedic surgeon was not competent to testify concerning applicable standard of care to orthopedic surgeon practicing in-state without first demonstrating that he possessed actual knowledge of applicable community standard); Dekker v. Magic Valley Reg. Medical Center, 115 Idaho 332 , 766 P.2d 1213 (1988); Buck v. St.

1991Strode v. Lenzi, 116 Idaho 214 , 775 P.2d 106 (1989) (out-of-state orthopedic surgeon was not competent to testify concerning applicable standard of care to orthopedic surgeon practicing in-state without first demonstrating that he possessed actual knowledge of applicable community standard); Dekker v. Magic Valley Reg. Medical Center, 115 Idaho 332 , 766 P.2d 1213 (1988); Buck v. St.

1991First, there was only a single defendant, Dr. Ball, on trial for negligence, and no other doctor or health care provider was mentioned in any of the evidence as having been guilty of negligence which caused or contributed to the death of Mr. Hilden____ The entire thrust of plaintiff’s case was that it was solely the defendant Dr. Ball who breached the local community standard of care by failing to preoxygenate Mr. Hilden before inducing anesthesia, which breach was the proximate cause of the death of Mr. Hilden. 117 Idaho at 335 , 787 P.2d at 1143 .

1991The entire thrust of plaintiff's case was that it was solely the defendant Dr. Ball who breached the local community standard of care by failing to preoxygenate Mr. Hilden before inducing anesthesia, which breach was the proximate cause of the death of Mr. Hilden. 117 Idaho at 335, 787 P.2d at 1143 .

1985In Le Pelley v. Grefenson, 101 Idaho 422 , 614 P.2d 962 (1980), McFadden, J., writing for a unanimous Court (including Bistline, J.), considered the statutes at issue in the present ease, validated the local community standard of care as being constitutional, and held that there was no retroactive application because the legislature had codified already existing case law, and under prior case law the local community had been the area wherein a practitioner standard of care had always been determined.

1985In Le Pelley v. Grefenson, 101 Idaho 422 , 614 P.2d 962 (1980), McFadden, J., writing for a unanimous Court (including Bistline, J.), considered the statutes at issue in the present ease, validated the local community standard of care as being constitutional, and held that there was no retroactive application because the legislature had codified already existing case law, and under prior case law the local community had been the area wherein a practitioner standard of care had always been determined.