Herrett v. St. Luke's Magic Valley Reg'l Med. Ctr., Ltd., 426 P.3d 480

Joyce Herrett suffered a stroke from an air embolism during removal of a central venous catheter (CVC) at St. Luke’s; St. Luke’s admitted its nurse breached the standard of care.
Plaintiffs (Rodney and Joyce Herrett) sought a jury determination on whether the conduct was reckless and on damages; jury returned about $3.85M later adjusted to $3,775,864.21.
Key trial disputes: scope of expert testimony from treating physician Dr. Kim Wiggins (redirect about encephalomalacia), admissibility of life‑care planner Debra DeMint‑Lee’s future‑care opinions, and scope of rebuttal expert Dr. Carl Goldstein’s testimony responding to defendant expert Dr. Stuart Shankland.
St. Luke’s moved for mistrial based on Wiggins’ redirect testimony and challenged several experts under I.R.C.P. 26 and I.R.E. 703.
The district court admitted the contested expert testimony and gave the plaintiffs’ proposed instruction defining “reckless.”
On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings or in the recklessness instruction; no appellate attorney fees were awarded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Dr. Wiggins’ redirect opinion on encephalomalacia	Redirect was proper because St. Luke’s opened door on cross‑examination	Disclosure rules required exclusion as outside pretrial expert disclosure	Court: Admit; testimony was within scope opened by cross‑examination; mistrial denied (invited error)
Admissibility of Dr. Goldstein’s rebuttal testimony	Disclosure reasonably described his rebuttal to Dr. Shankland and basis for opinion	Disclosure insufficiently specific about which publications he'd attack and how	Court: Admit; disclosure met I.R.C.P. 26 requirements in context; no abuse of discretion
Foundation for DeMint‑Lee’s life‑care opinions	Her review of records and consultation with providers was a proper basis under I.R.E. 703	Insufficient foundation because she hadn’t directly consulted treating physician	Court: Admit; foundation adequate and any error harmless given other supporting testimony
Jury instruction defining “reckless”	Proposed instruction accurately stated objective law and was clearer than IDJI	Instruction deviated from pattern (IDJI 2.25) and risked lowering plaintiff’s burden	Court: Affirm; instruction was an accurate, permissible statement of law and met I.R.C.P. 51(g)

Radmer v. Ford Motor Co., 120 Idaho 86 (1991) (undisclosed expert opinions developed pretrial must be disclosed; late disclosure may justify exclusion)
Sanville v. State, 593 P.2d 1340 (Wyo. 1979) (redirect may be used to rebut matters opened by cross‑examination; "opening the door" doctrine)
Hennefer v. Blaine Cnty. Sch. Dist., 158 Idaho 242 (2015) (recklessness is an objective standard; actor need not subjectively perceive risk)
Carillo v. Boise Tire Co. Inc., 152 Idaho 741 (2012) (reckless misconduct involves intentional conduct and knowledge of substantial risk)
Van Brunt v. Stoddard, 136 Idaho 681 (2001) (mistrial decision is discretionary; reversal requires abuse of that discretion)