Hall v. Rocky Mtn Emergency Physicians, 312 P.3d 313

Heather Hall sought ER treatment in June 2009 for severe headache in Portneuf Medical Center; Jeff Johnson examined her and allegedly removed her bra and touched her left breast under the guise of listening to her heart for 15–20 seconds.
Hall alleged battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy against Johnson, Holt, Fowler, and Rocky Mountain Emergency Physicians, L.L.C.
Rocky Mountain moved for summary judgment arguing Johnson had immunity under I.C. § 39-1391e and that Hall’s expert affidavit failed to meet I.C. §§ 6-1012 and 6-1013; the district court granted summary judgment, deeming the Bowman affidavit inadmissible.
Hall offered Dr. Bowman’s affidavit asserting a statewide standard of care under I.C. § 54-1814(22) and familiarity with Pocatello ER standards; the district court rejected Bowman’s foundation and did not address the statewide standard claim.
The court applied the admissibility framework under I.C. § 6-1012, 6-1013 and Rule 56(e), discussed Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus and related cases for local vs. statewide standards, and ultimately affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for Rocky Mountain.
Concurrence notes that § 18-919 creates a statewide standard and that IDAPA 22.01.01.101.04.d reflects a statewide standard in practice; nonetheless the majority held § 54-1814(22) does not establish a statewide standard of care in this case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bowman’s affidavit established familiarity with the applicable standard of care	Hall contends Bowman’s affidavit showed familiarity with Pocatello ER standards.	Rocky Mountain contends Bowman failed to demonstrate familiarity with the time/place standard.	Affirmed: Bowman failed to show adequate foundation for familiarity with the local standard.
Whether Bowman’s failure to disclose his specialty voids admissibility	Hall argues non-disclosure does not bar admissibility given industry standards.	Rocky Mountain asserts lack of specialty disclosure undermines credibility.	Affirmed: Specialty disclosure not required so long as other requirements are met.
Whether I.C. § 54-1814(22) establishes a statewide standard of care	Hall argues the statute creates a statewide standard of care for abuse/exploitation.	Rocky Mountain argues § 54-1814(22) is disciplinary, not a statewide care standard.	Statewide standard not established by § 54-1814(22); district court affirmed.
Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment under medical malpractice standards	Hall contends there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding standard of care.	Rocky Mountain argues Bowman’s affidavit, if admissible, fails to prove negligence.	Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine issue of material fact established under 6-1012/6-1013.

Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 137 Idaho 160 (Idaho 2002) (defines three-part test for expert familiarity with standard of care; local/community standard frontier)
Suhadolnik v. Pressman, 151 Idaho 110 (Idaho 2011) (out-of-area experts may rely on statewide standards if sufficiently familiar)
Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208 (Idaho 1994) (admissibility framework for expert testimony; Rule 56(e) requirements)
Grover v. Smith, 137 Idaho 247 (Idaho 2002) (board-drafted statewide standard of care may render expert testimony admissible)
Pearson v. Parsons, 114 Idaho 334 (Idaho 1988) (no requirement that expert share defendant's specialty if standards met)
Mains v. Cach, 143 Idaho 221 (Idaho 2006) (adequate foundation showing how expert learned local standard)