Conner v. Hodges, 157 Idaho 19

In January 2007 Dr. Bryan Hodges performed a bilateral tubal ligation on Jami Conner; she later became pregnant in April 2009 and gave birth in January 2010. A second tubal ligation was performed the day after the birth.
The Conners filed suit in April 2011 asserting medical malpractice (failed sterilization), breach of contract, loss of consortium (Ryan), and other claims; many claims were later dismissed or stipulated away.
Dr. Hodges moved for summary judgment arguing the malpractice claim accrued at the time of surgery and was time-barred under I.C. § 5-219(4) because objective tests (hysterosalpingogram or laparoscopic chromotubation) could have shown the failed ligation in 2007.
The Conners countered with expert evidence that those tests would have been medically unnecessary, risky, and therefore not performed; Jami’s injury was not objectively ascertainable until her pregnancy in 2009.
The district court granted summary judgment as to malpractice (finding accrual in 2007), breach of contract, and loss of consortium; on appeal the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the contract and consortium claims but vacated the malpractice dismissal and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Accrual of malpractice claim	Injury (some damage) did not occur or was not objectively ascertainable until pregnancy in 2009	Cause accrued at surgery in 2007 because objective medical tests available then would have shown the failed ligation	Vacated dismissal: factual dispute on whether injury was objectively ascertainable in 2007; expert evidence that tests were medically unnecessary created genuine issue so accrual at surgery not established as matter of law
Breach of contract claim	Failure to cauterize left tube breached contractual term; not precluded by statute	Claim arises from medical care and thus sounds in tort; I.C. § 6-1012 precludes separate contract action	Affirmed dismissal: gravamen is negligent provision/failure of health care, so contract claim barred
Ryan’s malpractice (duty)	Dr. Hodges owed Ryan a duty because harm to sexual partner from failed sterilization was foreseeable	No duty was pled or argued below; issue not raised in pleadings	Not addressed on appeal: court declined to consider unpleaded theory
Loss of consortium (Ryan)	Should extend to significant unmarried relationships	Loss of consortium is derivative and limited to spouses; no marriage at time of injury	Affirmed dismissal: claim limited to spouses; court declines to extend to unmarried partners

Stuard v. Jorgenson, 150 Idaho 701, 249 P.3d 1156 (Idaho 2011) (accrual/"objectively ascertainable" injury analysis in medical malpractice context)
Davis v. Moran, 112 Idaho 703, 735 P.2d 1014 (Idaho 1987) (definition and use of "objectively ascertainable" as analytical tool for when some damage has occurred)
Conway v. Sonntag, 141 Idaho 144, 106 P.3d 470 (Idaho 2005) (statute of limitations for professional malpractice and accrual rules)
Hayward v. Valley Vista Care Corp., 136 Idaho 342, 33 P.3d 816 (Idaho 2001) (when claim arises from provision or failure to provide health care, the action sounds in tort not contract)
Hawley v. Green, 117 Idaho 498, 788 P.2d 1321 (Idaho 1990) (plaintiff must prove actual damage before malpractice statute begins to run)