Bybee v. Gorman
157 Idaho 169
| Idaho | 2014Background
- Scott Bybee was prescribed amiodarone by cardiologist Dr. Patrick Gorman (2007) and continued the drug through early 2010 without required monitoring; later developed thyroid toxicity and had thyroidectomy in 2010.
- Bybees sued Gorman (medical malpractice) alleging failure to monitor for amiodarone side effects; Fred Meyer (pharmacy) was dismissed earlier and is not on appeal.
- Plaintiffs supported their opposition to summary judgment with affidavits from out-of-area cardiologist Dr. Jeffery Osborn (initial, supplemental, second supplemental) asserting familiarity with the applicable standard and that Gorman breached it.
- District court struck Osborn’s testimony as inadmissible because (1) it defined the relevant “community” as Idaho Falls and concluded Osborn (from Pocatello) lacked local familiarity, and (2) Osborn failed to identify the Idaho Falls cardiologist he consulted; court granted summary judgment for Gorman.
- Idaho Supreme Court vacated and remanded, holding the district court abused its discretion: (a) its rigid community definition error was harmless given record gaps, (b) an out-of-area expert may rely on an unnamed local consultant so long as the affidavit explains how the expert became familiar with the local standard, and (c) Osborn’s affidavits otherwise satisfied I.C. §§ 6-1012–6-1013 and I.R.C.P. 56(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper definition of "community" (geographic scope under I.C. § 6-1012) | Community scope is factual; Pocatello may lie within the hospital service area for Idaho Falls and should be considered in plaintiffs' favor | Care occurred in Idaho Falls; community is Idaho Falls, so out-of-area expert (Pocatello) is not local | District court erred treating scope as pure law but error harmless here—plaintiffs lacked evidence showing Pocatello was ordinarily served by EIRMC; community remains fact-based for district courts to decide on record |
| Whether unnamed local consultant is fatal to admissibility of out-of-area expert | An expert may rely on a consulting local physician without identifying them; no statutory requirement to disclose consultant’s identity | Anonymous consultant prevents defense investigation; identity is required to meet foundation | Court held anonymity is not per se fatal; admissibility depends on whether affidavit explains how expert became familiar with local standard and shows the consultant had actual knowledge during the relevant time |
| Whether Osborn’s affidavits met statutory/federal foundation (I.C. §§ 6-1012–6-1013; I.R.C.P. 56(e)) | Osborn’s affidavits (including statements of consultation and that opinions are held to reasonable medical certainty) established familiarity and satisfied statutes/rules | Affidavits were conclusory and lacked foundation about how Osborn became familiar with Idaho Falls standard | Court held Osborn’s affidavits, taken together, satisfied the statutory and Rule 56(e) requirements as an out-of-area expert and were admissible; summary judgment vacated |
| Entitlement to appellate attorney fees | N/A (Bybees prevailed) | Gorman sought fees as prevailing party | Denied—Gorman not prevailing party on appeal, so not entitled to fees under I.C. § 12-121 |
Key Cases Cited
- Arregui v. Gallegos-Main, 153 Idaho 801, 291 P.3d 1000 (Idaho 2012) (discussing foundation for consulting local expert and cautioning against elevating affidavit requirements)
- Hall v. Rocky Mountain Emergency Physicians, LLC, 155 Idaho 322, 312 P.3d 313 (Idaho 2013) (expert-admissibility threshold distinct from summary-judgment factual inferences; Rule 56(e) requirements)
- Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, 137 Idaho 160, 45 P.3d 816 (Idaho 2002) (expert must explain how familiarized with local standard; affidavits must show admissible facts)
- Ramos v. Dixon, 144 Idaho 32, 156 P.3d 533 (Idaho 2007) (foundation requirements for expert testimony under I.C. § 6-1013)
- Dunlap v. Garner, 127 Idaho 599, 903 P.2d 1296 (Idaho 1995) (affidavit statements about consulting local practitioners sufficient and court should not weigh credibility on summary judgment)
- Gubler v. Boe, 120 Idaho 294, 815 P.2d 1034 (Idaho 1991) (expert from different city held not familiar with community standard where plaintiff offered no evidence hospital served both areas)