David Samples v. Dr. Ray W. Hanson
161 Idaho 179
| Idaho | 2016Background
- In 2009 David Samples underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy by Dr. Ray Hanson at Bingham Memorial Hospital; intraoperative colon injury occurred and Samples later developed sepsis and respiratory distress, requiring transfer to Portneuf Medical Center where Dr. Birkenhagen reopened the site and treated sepsis.
- Samples sued Hanson and BMH for medical malpractice in 2011; the trial court set expert-disclosure deadlines for September 16, 2013. Samples disclosed Dr. Birkenhagen late (Sept. 20–30) and the court sanctioned them, limiting them to Birkenhagen’s testimony as disclosed by Sept. 30.
- Hanson moved to strike Birkenhagen as an expert under Idaho Code §§ 6-1012 and 6-1013 (foundation for medical expert testimony) and moved for summary judgment. The district court treated the strike as a summary-judgment threshold issue and granted summary judgment, finding Samples failed to lay adequate foundation that Birkenhagen knew the applicable community standard of care.
- On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court considered whether Birkenhagen had actual knowledge of the applicable standard of care (familiarity requirement) and whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding his testimony.
- The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, holding Birkenhagen’s affidavit sufficiently showed familiarity with the applicable standard of care (he had hospital privileges at BMH beginning 2011, replaced Hanson, reviewed records, and described universal postoperative infection-monitoring practices).
- The Court declined to award attorney’s fees to either party on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert was familiar with applicable community standard of care under I.C. §§ 6-1012–6-1013 | Birkenhagen: his affidavit, BMH privileges (2011), replacement of Hanson, review of records, and description of universal postop standards show actual knowledge of 2009 local standard | Hanson: Birkenhagen did not demonstrate how he became familiar with Blackfoot/ BM H 2009 standard; late disclosure and lack of inquiry into local practice insufficient | Court: Held affidavit met minimum foundation—Birkenhagen had actual knowledge; district court abused discretion in excluding testimony; vacated and remanded |
| Whether board-certification/ACOS membership altered locality requirement | Samples: national/universal standard applies to board-certified surgeons; Birkenhagen treated the standard as universal for board-certified/ACS members | Hanson: argued he was not board-certified in 2009 (certification lapsed 2008), undermining reliance on national standard | Court: rejected requirement that a physician "hold out" board-certification; even if Hanson’s certification lapsed, ACS membership and prior certification supported Birkenhagen’s opinion about universal standards |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given expert exclusion | Samples: exclusion of sole expert effectively dismissed case despite adequate foundation | Hanson: exclusion appropriate because statutory foundation lacking and expert late-disclosed | Court: ruled exclusion was erroneous; vacated district court’s summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees on appeal under I.C. § 12-121 | Samples: sought fees as prevailing party | Hanson: sought fees as appellee | Court: denied fees to both (Samples prevailed but appeal was not frivolous; Hanson not prevailing party) |
Key Cases Cited
- Arregui v. Gallegos-Main, 153 Idaho 801 (discusses standard of review for summary judgment)
- Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 137 Idaho 160 (explains Rule 56 and expert affidavit requirements in medical-malpractice cases)
- Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468 (details §§ 6-1012–6-1013 foundation for medical expert testimony)
- Bybee v. Gorman, 157 Idaho 169 (addresses admissibility threshold for expert testimony at summary-judgment stage)
- Hall v. Rocky Mountain Emergency Physicians, LLC, 155 Idaho 322 (addresses review standard for trial court evidentiary rulings)
- Buck v. St. Clair, 108 Idaho 743 (holds national standard applies to board-certified specialists and discusses "holding out" limitation)