Hoover v. Hunter
249 P.3d 851
Idaho2011Background
- Dr. Ellen Hunter performed an EGD on Sheila Hoover on March 28, 2005 at St. Luke's in Boise; risks were discussed and consent obtained.
- During the procedure, Hoover bled and suffered decreased oxygen; she was admitted to St. Luke's Critical Care Unit; Dr. John Witte later assumed care.
- Hoovers moved Hoover to Sunbridge Nursing Facility over four days; Hoover died April 19, 2005.
- The Hoovers filed suit March 27, 2007 alleging medical malpractice and fraud; district court ordered expert disclosures by October 1, 2008.
- Hoovers disclosed three names but provided no opinions; later discovery orders compelled fuller responses; June 25, 2009 summary judgment granted for defendants; fraud claim deemed restatement of malpractice; Hoovers appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly dismissed the malpractice claims under I.C. §§ 6-1012 and 6-1013 | Hoovers assert genuine issues of material fact exist regarding expert testimony. | Defendants contend Hoovers failed to present admissible expert testimony meeting statutory requirements. | Yes; summary judgment proper. |
| Whether the fraud claim was properly dismissed as a restatement of malpractice | Hoovers argue fraud claims survive separate grounds and evidence. | Fraud claim is in essence the malpractice claim since damages arise from death. | Yes; properly dismissed as restatement of malpractice. |
| Whether the Hoovers' Motion to Compel was preserved for appeal | Hoovers sought compelled discovery ruling prior to summary judgment. | No objection was raised below; preservation failed. | Not preserved; not reached on appeal. |
| Whether the Hoovers' appeal of the defendants' costs was properly before the court | Hoovers challenge the costs ruling. | No adverse ruling to appeal; issue waived for failure to object within 14 days. | Not properly before the court; waived. |
| Whether attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 12-121 should be awarded | Hoovers seek reversal-on-fees arguments. | Fees not mandatory; discretion to award only for frivolous, unreasonable actions. | Denied; not frivolous or lacking foundation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 137 Idaho 160 (2002) (requires expert testimony to support malpractice claim under §6-1013)
- Perry v. Magic Valley Reg'l Med. Ctr., 134 Idaho 46 (2000) (national vs. local standard of care considerations for expert testimony)
- Hough v. Fry, 131 Idaho 230 (1998) (I.C. § 6-1012 applies to the provision of health care as a single act)
- Lapham v. Stewart, 137 Idaho 582 (2002) (malpractice framework; wrongful act or omission in course of professional services)
- Hoppe v. McDonald, 103 Idaho 33 (1982) (preservation of objections; failure to raise at trial limits appellate review)
- Ada Cnty. Highway Dist. v. Total Success Invs., LLC, 145 Idaho 360 (2008) (record must reveal adverse ruling to support an appeal on costs)