community standard in Idaho

2016Idaho Code section 6-1012 defines the applicable community standard of care as: (a) the standard of care for the class of health care provider to which the defendant belonged and was functioning, taking into account the defendant’s training, experience, and fields of medical specialization, if any; (b) as such standard existed at the time of the defendant’s alleged negligence; and (c) as such standard existed at the place of the defendant’s alleged negligence. 4 Dulaney, 137 Idaho at 164 , 45 P.3d at 820 (internal citations omitted).

2016“The applicable community standard of care is defined in Idaho Code § 6-1012 to be the standard of care for the class of health care provider to which the defendant belonged and was functioning, taking into account the defendant’s training, experience, and fields of medical specialization, if any.” Id. at 166 , 45 P.3d at 822 .

2020In determining whether an expert witness has actual knowledge of the applicable community standard of care, “[t]he guiding question is simply whether the affidavit alleges facts which, taken as true, show the proposed expert has actual knowledge of the applicable standard of care.” Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 474 , 337 P.3d 627, 633 (2014).

2020In determining whether an expert witness has actual knowledge of the applicable community standard of care, “[t]he guiding question is simply whether the affidavit alleges facts which, taken as true, show the proposed expert has actual knowledge of the applicable standard of care.” Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 474 , 337 P.3d 627, 633 (2014).

2025Fisk v. McDonald, 167 Idaho 870, 880 , 477 P.3d 924, 934 (2020).

2025Fisk v. McDonald, 167 Idaho 870, 880 , 477 P.3d 924, 934 (2020).

1981Since the statement and nonbilling together would not be sufficient to create the required inference about failing to meet the community standard, it is unnecessary for us to decide this issue. [1] The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that the Maxwells had failed to introduce any expert testimony of medical malpractice. [2] Although Idaho now has a statutory requirement of direct expert testimony, I.C. § 6-1012, the Court observed in LePelley v. Grefenson, 101 Idaho 422 , 614 P.2d 962 (1980), that this statute merely codified the existing case law which required such testimo

1981Since the statement and nonbilling together would not be sufficient to create the required inference about failing to meet the community standard, it is unnecessary for us to decide this issue. [1] The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that the Maxwells had failed to introduce any expert testimony of medical malpractice. [2] Although Idaho now has a statutory requirement of direct expert testimony, I.C. § 6-1012, the Court observed in LePelley v. Grefenson, 101 Idaho 422 , 614 P.2d 962 (1980), that this statute merely codified the existing case law which required such testimo

2023See Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 212 , 868 P.2d 1224, 1228 (1994) (“Because there is no indication that [the expert] inquired of a local doctor . . . there is not sufficient foundation in [the expert’s] affidavit to show that he had actual knowledge of the applicable community standard.”).

2023See Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 212 , 868 P.2d 1224, 1228 (1994) (“Because there is no indication that [the expert] inquired of a local doctor . . . there is not sufficient foundation in [the expert’s] affidavit to show that he had actual knowledge of the applicable community standard.”).

1994Strode v. Lenzi, 116 Idaho 214, 216 , 775 P.2d 106, 108 (1989) (before a board-certified specialist from outside the state may testify as to the standard of care, the specialist “must, at a minimum, inquire of a local specialist to determine whether the local community standard varies from the national standard for that board certified specialty”); Dunlap v. Garner, — Idaho-, — P.2d-, 1993 WL 163873 (filed May 19, 1993) (the Court found there was sufficient foundation in the plaintiffs affidavit to survive a challenge under Rule 56(e) where the expert had contacted local health care practition

1994Strode v. Lenzi, 116 Idaho 214, 216 , 775 P.2d 106, 108 (1989) (before a board-certified specialist from outside the state may testify as to the standard of care, the specialist “must, at a minimum, inquire of a local specialist to determine whether the local community standard varies from the national standard for that board certified specialty”); Dunlap v. Garner, — Idaho-, — P.2d-, 1993 WL 163873 (filed May 19, 1993) (the Court found there was sufficient foundation in the plaintiffs affidavit to survive a challenge under Rule 56(e) where the expert had contacted local health care practition

2020An expert witness may testify as to the applicable community standard of care only if he or she has actual knowledge of the community standard as it existed “at the time and place of the alleged negligence.” Navo v. Bingham Mem’l Hosp., 160 Idaho 363, 370 , 373 P.3d 681, 688 (2016) (citing I.C. § 6-1013).

2020An expert witness may testify as to the applicable community standard of care only if he or she has actual knowledge of the community standard as it existed “at the time and place of the alleged negligence.” Navo v. Bingham Mem’l Hosp., 160 Idaho 363, 370 , 373 P.3d 681, 688 (2016) (citing I.C. § 6-1013).

2014“This Court has repeatedly held that ‘issues considered on summary judgment are those raised by the pleadings.’ ” Vanvooren v. Astin, 141 Idaho 440, 443 , 111 P.3d 125, 128 (2005) (quoting Beco Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls, 124 Idaho 859, 865 , 865 P.2d 950, 956 (1993)).

2014“This Court has repeatedly held that ‘issues considered on summary judgment are those raised by the pleadings.’ ” Vanvooren v. Astin, 141 Idaho 440, 443 , 111 P.3d 125, 128 (2005) (quoting Beco Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls, 124 Idaho 859, 865 , 865 P.2d 950, 956 (1993)).

2014“This Court has repeatedly held that ‘issues considered on summary judgment are those raised by the pleadings.’ ” Vanvooren v. Astin, 141 Idaho 440, 443 , 111 P.3d 125, 128 (2005) (quoting Beco Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls, 124 Idaho 859, 865 , 865 P.2d 950, 956 (1993)).

2014“This Court has repeatedly held that ‘issues considered on summary judgment are those raised by the pleadings.’ ” Vanvooren v. Astin, 141 Idaho 440, 443 , 111 P.3d 125, 128 (2005) (quoting Beco Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls, 124 Idaho 859, 865 , 865 P.2d 950, 956 (1993)).

2006Idaho Code § 6-1013 requires that “the expert must show that he or she actually holds the opinion, that it is held with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and that he or she is not only an expert but has actual knowledge of the applicable community standard.” Kolln, 130 Idaho at 329 , 940 P.2d at 1148 .

2006Idaho Code § 6-1013 requires that “the expert must show that he or she actually holds the opinion, that it is held with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and that he or she is not only an expert but has actual knowledge of the applicable community standard.” Kolln, 130 Idaho at 329 , 940 P.2d at 1148 .

1989Clair, 108 Idaho 743 , 702 P.2d 781 (1985). [1] In order for a plaintiff to recover in a medical malpractice case, he or she must produce testimony from a competent expert who "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... ." I.C. § 6-1013.

1989Clair, 108 Idaho 743 , 702 P.2d 781 (1985). [1] In order for a plaintiff to recover in a medical malpractice case, he or she must produce testimony from a competent expert who "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... ." I.C. § 6-1013.

2020Shoshone Hosp., 114 Idaho 480, 482 , 757 P.2d 1199, 1201 (1988)).

2020Shoshone Hosp., 114 Idaho 480, 482 , 757 P.2d 1199, 1201 (1988)).

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW “On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.” Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 472 , 337 P.3d 627, 631 (2014) (quoting Arregui v. Gallegos–Main, 153 Idaho 801, 804 , 291 P.3d 1000, 1003 (2012)).

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW “On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.” Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 472 , 337 P.3d 627, 631 (2014) (quoting Arregui v. Gallegos–Main, 153 Idaho 801, 804 , 291 P.3d 1000, 1003 (2012)).

2020See, e.g., Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825, 830 , 828 P.2d 854, 859 (1991) (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 deposition of a doctor who practiced in the same area as the defendant which stated that the community standard was the same as the national standard “with one irrelevant exception”).

2020See, e.g., Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825, 830 , 828 P.2d 854, 859 (1991) (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 deposition of a doctor who practiced in the same area as the defendant which stated that the community standard was the same as the national standard “with one irrelevant exception”).

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).

2020“In determining whether to admit affidavit testimony, the court must determine whether the affidavit alleges facts, which if taken as true, would render the testimony admissible.” Nield v. Pocatello Health Servs., Inc., 156 Idaho 802, 816 , 332 P.3d 714, 728 (2014) (citation omitted).

2020“In determining whether to admit affidavit testimony, the court must determine whether the affidavit alleges facts, which if taken as true, would render the testimony admissible.” Nield v. Pocatello Health Servs., Inc., 156 Idaho 802, 816 , 332 P.3d 714, 728 (2014) (citation omitted).

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)). 12 the relevant and applicable standard of health care practice. 8 Accordingly, we hold that the district court applied an erroneous legal standard and therefore erred in concluding that Dr. Osborn’s affidavit was inadmissible solely because he relied on an unidentified physician to familiarize himself

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)). 12 the relevant and applicable standard of health care practice. 8 Accordingly, we hold that the district court applied an erroneous legal standard and therefore erred in concluding that Dr. Osborn’s affidavit was inadmissible solely because he relied on an unidentified physician to familiarize himself

2009It is, therefore, further declared to be in the public interest that the liability exposure of such health care providers be limited and made more definable by a requirement for direct proof of departure from a community standard of practice. 6 merited only if the error affects a substantial right of one of the parties.‖ Morris v. Thomson, 130 Idaho 138, 144 , 937 P.2d 1212, 1218 (1997).

2009It is, therefore, further declared to be in the public interest that the liability exposure of such health care providers be limited and made more definable by a requirement for direct proof of departure from a community standard of practice. 6 merited only if the error affects a substantial right of one of the parties.‖ Morris v. Thomson, 130 Idaho 138, 144 , 937 P.2d 1212, 1218 (1997).