Easterling v. Kendall, M.D.
159 Idaho 902
Idaho2016Background
- On Sept. 5, 2011, 15-year-old Alesa Easterling presented to ER physician Dr. Eric Kendall with headache, vomiting, left facial droop and slurred speech after a fall; Kendall diagnosed concussion, ordered CT (normal), and discharged her without MRI.
- The following day imaging revealed a right internal carotid artery dissection and stroke; Easterling was treated with anticoagulation, experienced further strokes/complications, and alleges permanent neurological injury from delayed diagnosis/treatment.
- Easterling sued for medical malpractice alleging Kendall’s misdiagnosis and resulting one‑day treatment delay proximately caused her injuries; discovery deadlines required full expert disclosures by scheduling order.
- Easterling disclosed an emergency‑medicine expert (Dr. Bruce Wapen) for standard‑of‑care but did not timely disclose Wapen’s causation opinions; she also listed five treating physicians as non‑retained experts but failed to provide adequate interrogatory answers about their causation opinions.
- The district court excluded Wapen’s and the treating physicians’ causation opinions from Easterling’s case in chief for discovery violations, denied her motion to present rebuttal causation testimony during her case in chief, and granted Kendall’s motion for directed verdict for lack of expert causation proof; the court awarded discretionary costs to Kendall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluding Wapen’s causation testimony | Wapen was disclosed as an expert and his causation opinions were seasonably supplemented | Disclosure of new causation opinions after the scheduling deadline violated Rule 16/26; prejudice to defense | Court did not abuse discretion: late/sparse supplementation amounted to a new expert; exclusion proper |
| Excluding treating physicians’ causation testimony | Treating physicians were identified and Easterling’s counsel stated expected testimony; compliance with discovery | Interrogatory responses lacked actual opinions/bases; counsel never confirmed physicians would offer causation opinions | Court did not abuse discretion: disclosures failed Rule 26(e) obligations; exclusion proper |
| Denial of allowing rebuttal causation testimony in plaintiff’s case in chief | Defense cross-examination opened the door to rebuttal causation testimony | Defense did not open the door to causation; rebuttal not warranted | Court did not abuse discretion: cross-examination did not open door; rebuttal excluded |
| Directed verdict for Kendall (proximate cause) | Proximate cause can be inferred from chain of circumstances without expert testimony (Sheridan) | Expert testimony required here because causation, treatment choice, and effect of one‑day delay are beyond lay knowledge | Directed verdict affirmed: record lacked expert evidence to let reasonable jury find delay was a substantial factor |
| Award of discretionary costs to Kendall | Costs were ordinary for malpractice defense; Easterling’s discovery failures did not make them exceptional | Discovery misconduct and misleading disclosures increased defense expense; discretionary costs warranted | Award vacated: court failed to explain how expenses became exceptional and improperly tied unrelated expert fees to Rule 11 violation |
| Attorney fees on appeal | N/A — appeal raised non‑frivolous arguments | Sought fees as prevailing party | Denied: appeal not frivolous; no fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Edmunds v. Kraner, 142 Idaho 867, 136 P.3d 338 (recognizes seasonal supplementation of expert opinions where scheduling order only required names)
- Stradley, 127 Idaho 203, 889 P.2d 416 (standard for reviewing discovery‑violation sanctions)
- Hayden Lake Fire Prot. Dist. v. Alcorn, 141 Idaho 307, 109 P.3d 161 (standards for discretionary costs award)
- Van Brunt v. Stoddard, 136 Idaho 681, 39 P.3d 621 (rebuttal evidence and discretion)
- Coombs v. Curnow, 148 Idaho 129, 219 P.3d 453 (medical malpractice proximate cause framework)
- Sheridan v. St. Luke’s Reg’l Med. Ctr., 135 Idaho 775, 25 P.3d 88 (proximate cause may be inferred from chain of circumstances in certain malpractice facts)
- Swallow v. Emergency Med. of Idaho, P.A., 138 Idaho 589, 67 P.3d 68 (no blanket rule: expert testimony sometimes necessary for causation)
- Hoagland v. Ada Cnty., 154 Idaho 900, 303 P.3d 587 (factors for determining whether costs are "exceptional")
- Pearson v. Parsons, 114 Idaho 334, 757 P.2d 197 (plaintiff must prove negligence and proximate cause in malpractice)
- Weeks v. E. Idaho Health Serv., 143 Idaho 834, 153 P.3d 1180 (proof of proximate cause via chain of circumstances)
- Nightengale v. Timmel, 151 Idaho 347, 256 P.3d 755 (expert witness fees in malpractice are ordinarily not "exceptional")