local standard in Idaho

2002Ctr., 115 Idaho 332, 334 , 766 P.2d 1213, 1215 (1988) (affirming grant of summary judgment when out-of-state experts did nothing to establish familiarity with the local standard of care); Evans v. Griswold, 129 Idaho 902, 905 , 935 P.2d 165, 168 (1997) (affirming grant of summary judgment because plaintiffs expert, an ophthalmologist, was a physician, and thus the standard of care he was familiar with differed significantly from that of the defendant, an optometrist, who was not a physician); Hoene v. Barnes, 121 Idaho 752 , 828 P.2d 315 (1992) (vacating grant of summary judgment because in ca

2002Ctr., 115 Idaho 332, 334 , 766 P.2d 1213, 1215 (1988) (affirming grant of summary judgment when out-of-state experts did nothing to establish familiarity with the local standard of care); Evans v. Griswold, 129 Idaho 902, 905 , 935 P.2d 165, 168 (1997) (affirming grant of summary judgment because plaintiffs expert, an ophthalmologist, was a physician, and thus the standard of care he was familiar with differed significantly from that of the defendant, an optometrist, who was not a physician); Hoene v. Barnes, 121 Idaho 752 , 828 P.2d 315 (1992) (vacating grant of summary judgment because in ca

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).

2002Ctr., 115 Idaho 332, 334 , 766 P.2d 1213, 1215 (1988) (affirming grant of summary judgment when out-of-state experts did nothing to establish familiarity with the local standard of care); Evans v. Griswold, 129 Idaho 902, 905 , 935 P.2d 165, 168 (1997) (affirming grant of summary judgment because plaintiffs expert, an ophthalmologist, was a physician, and thus the standard of care he was familiar with differed significantly from that of the defendant, an optometrist, who was not a physician); Hoene v. Barnes, 121 Idaho 752 , 828 P.2d 315 (1992) (vacating grant of summary judgment because in ca

2002Ctr., 115 Idaho 332, 334 , 766 P.2d 1213, 1215 (1988) (affirming grant of summary judgment when out-of-state experts did nothing to establish familiarity with the local standard of care); Evans v. Griswold, 129 Idaho 902, 905 , 935 P.2d 165, 168 (1997) (affirming grant of summary judgment because plaintiffs expert, an ophthalmologist, was a physician, and thus the standard of care he was familiar with differed significantly from that of the defendant, an optometrist, who was not a physician); Hoene v. Barnes, 121 Idaho 752 , 828 P.2d 315 (1992) (vacating grant of summary judgment because in ca

2020“An expert’s 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, is sufficient to lay a foundation for the expert’s opinion.” Grover v. Smith, 137 Idaho 247, 252 , 46 P.3d 1105, 1110 (2002) (citations omitted).

2020“An expert’s 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, is sufficient to lay a foundation for the expert’s opinion.” Grover v. Smith, 137 Idaho 247, 252 , 46 P.3d 1105, 1110 (2002) (citations omitted).

2025Perry, 134 Idaho at 51–52, 995 P.2d at 821–22 (citing Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825 , 828–29, 828 P.2d 854 , 857–58 (1992)); See also Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 212 , 868 P.2d 1224, 1228 (1994) (stating that, although the reviewed deposition was defective, “it may be possible for an expert to become familiar with the local standard of care by reviewing the defendant doctor’s deposition.”). 24 That said, the basis for this claim was not made below until the Dodds filed a second supplemental report from Dr. Simon.

2025Perry, 134 Idaho at 51–52, 995 P.2d at 821–22 (citing Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825 , 828–29, 828 P.2d 854 , 857–58 (1992)); See also Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 212 , 868 P.2d 1224, 1228 (1994) (stating that, although the reviewed deposition was defective, “it may be possible for an expert to become familiar with the local standard of care by reviewing the defendant doctor’s deposition.”). 24 That said, the basis for this claim was not made below until the Dodds filed a second supplemental report from Dr. Simon.

2025Perry, 134 Idaho at 51–52, 995 P.2d at 821–22 (citing Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825 , 828–29, 828 P.2d 854 , 857–58 (1992)); See also Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 212 , 868 P.2d 1224, 1228 (1994) (stating that, although the reviewed deposition was defective, “it may be possible for an expert to become familiar with the local standard of care by reviewing the defendant doctor’s deposition.”). 24 That said, the basis for this claim was not made below until the Dodds filed a second supplemental report from Dr. Simon.

2025Perry, 134 Idaho at 51–52, 995 P.2d at 821–22 (citing Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825 , 828–29, 828 P.2d 854 , 857–58 (1992)); See also Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 212 , 868 P.2d 1224, 1228 (1994) (stating that, although the reviewed deposition was defective, “it may be possible for an expert to become familiar with the local standard of care by reviewing the defendant doctor’s deposition.”). 24 That said, the basis for this claim was not made below until the Dodds filed a second supplemental report from Dr. Simon.

2020Id. at 475–76, 337 P.3d at 634–35 (citing Arregui, 153 Idaho at 803 , 291 P.3d at 1002 ; Dulaney, 137 Idaho at 162–63, 45 P.3d at 818–19); see also Suhadolnik, 151 Idaho at 118–19, 254 P.3d at 19–20 (distinguishing case from Kozlowski, Perry, and Hayward v. Jack’s Pharmacy, 141 Idaho 622 , 115 P.3d 713 (2005), where each expert “in addition to speaking to a local specialist, also reviewed multiple depositions of persons knowledgeable of the local standard”).

2020Id. at 475–76, 337 P.3d at 634–35 (citing Arregui, 153 Idaho at 803 , 291 P.3d at 1002 ; Dulaney, 137 Idaho at 162–63, 45 P.3d at 818–19); see also Suhadolnik, 151 Idaho at 118–19, 254 P.3d at 19–20 (distinguishing case from Kozlowski, Perry, and Hayward v. Jack’s Pharmacy, 141 Idaho 622 , 115 P.3d 713 (2005), where each expert “in addition to speaking to a local specialist, also reviewed multiple depositions of persons knowledgeable of the local standard”).

2025See Hall v. Rocky Mountain Emergency Physicians, LLC, 155 Idaho 322, 327 , 312 P.3d 313, 318 (2013) (requiring plaintiff’s Idaho Falls physician to lay adequate foundation showing how he became familiar with the local standard of care for the defendant emergency room physicians or physician’s assistants in Pocatello at the time of the alleged negligence).

2025See Hall v. Rocky Mountain Emergency Physicians, LLC, 155 Idaho 322, 327 , 312 P.3d 313, 318 (2013) (requiring plaintiff’s Idaho Falls physician to lay adequate foundation showing how he became familiar with the local standard of care for the defendant emergency room physicians or physician’s assistants in Pocatello at the time of the alleged negligence).

2025Perry, 134 Idaho at 51–52, 995 P.2d at 821–22 (citing Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825 , 828–29, 828 P.2d 854 , 857–58 (1992)); See also Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 212 , 868 P.2d 1224, 1228 (1994) (stating that, although the reviewed deposition was defective, “it may be possible for an expert to become familiar with the local standard of care by reviewing the defendant doctor’s deposition.”). 24 That said, the basis for this claim was not made below until the Dodds filed a second supplemental report from Dr. Simon.

2025Perry, 134 Idaho at 51–52, 995 P.2d at 821–22 (citing Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825 , 828–29, 828 P.2d 854 , 857–58 (1992)); See also Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 212 , 868 P.2d 1224, 1228 (1994) (stating that, although the reviewed deposition was defective, “it may be possible for an expert to become familiar with the local standard of care by reviewing the defendant doctor’s deposition.”). 24 That said, the basis for this claim was not made below until the Dodds filed a second supplemental report from Dr. Simon.

2020Id. at 475–76, 337 P.3d at 634–35 (citing Arregui, 153 Idaho at 803 , 291 P.3d at 1002 ; Dulaney, 137 Idaho at 162–63, 45 P.3d at 818–19); see also Suhadolnik, 151 Idaho at 118–19, 254 P.3d at 19–20 (distinguishing case from Kozlowski, Perry, and Hayward v. Jack’s Pharmacy, 141 Idaho 622 , 115 P.3d 713 (2005), where each expert “in addition to speaking to a local specialist, also reviewed multiple depositions of persons knowledgeable of the local standard”).

2020Id. at 475–76, 337 P.3d at 634–35 (citing Arregui, 153 Idaho at 803 , 291 P.3d at 1002 ; Dulaney, 137 Idaho at 162–63, 45 P.3d at 818–19); see also Suhadolnik, 151 Idaho at 118–19, 254 P.3d at 19–20 (distinguishing case from Kozlowski, Perry, and Hayward v. Jack’s Pharmacy, 141 Idaho 622 , 115 P.3d 713 (2005), where each expert “in addition to speaking to a local specialist, also reviewed multiple depositions of persons knowledgeable of the local standard”).

2020“One method for an out-of-area expert to obtain knowledge of the local standard of care is by inquiring of a local specialist.” Dulaney, 137 Idaho at 164 , 45 P.3d at 820 (citing Perry v. Magic Valley Reg’l Med.

2020“One method for an out-of-area expert to obtain knowledge of the local standard of care is by inquiring of a local specialist.” Dulaney, 137 Idaho at 164 , 45 P.3d at 820 (citing Perry v. Magic Valley Reg’l Med.

2020See Hall, 155 Idaho at 329 , 312 P.3d at 320 (citing Suhadolnik, 151 Idaho at 116 , 254 P.3d at 17 ); see also Newberry v. Martens, 142 Idaho 284, 292 , 127 P.3d 187, 195 (2005) (holding that an ophthalmologist could become familiar with the local standard of care for family practice physicians by practicing alongside family practice physicians in the relevant community).

2020See Hall, 155 Idaho at 329 , 312 P.3d at 320 (citing Suhadolnik, 151 Idaho at 116 , 254 P.3d at 17 ); see also Newberry v. Martens, 142 Idaho 284, 292 , 127 P.3d 187, 195 (2005) (holding that an ophthalmologist could become familiar with the local standard of care for family practice physicians by practicing alongside family practice physicians in the relevant community).

2014"The plaintiff's expert can also make inquiries to another out-of-area specialist, so long as that specialist has had sufficient contacts with the area in question to demonstrate personal knowledge of the local standard.” Id. (citing Shane v. Blair, 139 Idaho 126, 130 , 75 P.3d 180, 184 (2003)). .

2014"The plaintiff's expert can also make inquiries to another out-of-area specialist, so long as that specialist has had sufficient contacts with the area in question to demonstrate personal knowledge of the local standard.” Id. (citing Shane v. Blair, 139 Idaho 126, 130 , 75 P.3d 180, 184 (2003)). .

2025The Idaho Supreme Court held that this circumstance did “not present a situation where an out-of-area doctor is required to become familiar with the local standard of care by consulting with a local physician.” Id. at 185 , 384 P.3d at 949 .

2025The Idaho Supreme Court held that this circumstance did “not present a situation where an out-of-area doctor is required to become familiar with the local standard of care by consulting with a local physician.” Id. at 185 , 384 P.3d at 949 .

2020“Only regulations that concern the ‘physical administration of health services’ can replace a local standard of care for purposes of Idaho Code sections 6-1012 and 6-1013.” Id. (quoting Mattox, 157 Idaho at 478 , 337 P.3d at 637 ).

2020“Only regulations that concern the ‘physical administration of health services’ can replace a local standard of care for purposes of Idaho Code sections 6-1012 and 6-1013.” Id. (quoting Mattox, 157 Idaho at 478 , 337 P.3d at 637 ).

2002Ctr., 115 Idaho 332, 334 , 766 P.2d 1213, 1215 (1988) (affirming grant of summary judgment when out-of-state experts did nothing to establish familiarity with the local standard of care); Evans v. Griswold, 129 Idaho 902, 905 , 935 P.2d 165, 168 (1997) (affirming grant of summary judgment because plaintiffs expert, an ophthalmologist, was a physician, and thus the standard of care he was familiar with differed significantly from that of the defendant, an optometrist, who was not a physician); Hoene v. Barnes, 121 Idaho 752 , 828 P.2d 315 (1992) (vacating grant of summary judgment because in ca

1994The failure on the part of the plaintiff's expert was sufficient basis for the trial court to grant summary judgment for the defendant); Dekker v. Magic Valley Regional Medical Center, 115 Idaho 332 , 766 P.2d 1213 (1988) (affirming trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant where there was no indication in the record that the plaintiff's out-of-area experts had any knowledge of the local standard, thus violating the rule that an out-of-area physician must demonstrate familiarity with the local standard); Strode v. Lenzi, 116 Idaho 214 , 775 P.2d 106 (1989) (affirming the trial

2002Ctr., 115 Idaho 332, 334 , 766 P.2d 1213, 1215 (1988) (affirming grant of summary judgment when out-of-state experts did nothing to establish familiarity with the local standard of care); Evans v. Griswold, 129 Idaho 902, 905 , 935 P.2d 165, 168 (1997) (affirming grant of summary judgment because plaintiffs expert, an ophthalmologist, was a physician, and thus the standard of care he was familiar with differed significantly from that of the defendant, an optometrist, who was not a physician); Hoene v. Barnes, 121 Idaho 752 , 828 P.2d 315 (1992) (vacating grant of summary judgment because in ca

2002Ctr., 115 Idaho 332, 334 , 766 P.2d 1213, 1215 (1988) (affirming grant of summary judgment when out-of-state experts did nothing to establish familiarity with the local standard of care); Evans v. Griswold, 129 Idaho 902, 905 , 935 P.2d 165, 168 (1997) (affirming grant of summary judgment because plaintiffs expert, an ophthalmologist, was a physician, and thus the standard of care he was familiar with differed significantly from that of the defendant, an optometrist, who was not a physician); Hoene v. Barnes, 121 Idaho 752 , 828 P.2d 315 (1992) (vacating grant of summary judgment because in ca

2020However, “not all state or federal regulations are the type that can replace a local standard of care.” Id. at 372 , 373 P.3d at 690 .

2020However, “not all state or federal regulations are the type that can replace a local standard of care.” Id. at 372 , 373 P.3d at 690 .

2020“Only regulations that concern the ‘physical administration of health services’ can replace a local standard of care for purposes of Idaho Code sections 6-1012 and 6-1013.” Id. (quoting Mattox, 157 Idaho at 478 , 337 P.3d at 637 ).

2016“Only regulations that concern the ‘physical administration of health services’ can replace a local standard of care for purposes of Idaho Code sections 6-1012 and 6-1013.” Id. at 478, P.3d at 637 (citing McDaniel at 223 , 159 P.3d at 860 ).

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).

2002Id. at 295 , 815 P.2d at 1035 .

2002Id. at 295 , 815 P.2d at 1035 .

2026In a medical malpractice action, Rule 26(b)(4)(A)(i) requires the plaintiff to disclose “the names of any non-testifying medical experts who provide information concerning the local standard of care.” Quigley v. Kemp, 162 Idaho 408, 412 , 398 P.3d 141, 145 (2017).

2026In a medical malpractice action, Rule 26(b)(4)(A)(i) requires the plaintiff to disclose “the names of any non-testifying medical experts who provide information concerning the local standard of care.” Quigley v. Kemp, 162 Idaho 408, 412 , 398 P.3d 141, 145 (2017).