51546
IdahoJul 29, 2026Background
- Sherry Thaete died after St. Luke’s administered Paxil during hospitalization despite evidence she had been prescribed Nardil, a contraindicated medication. 1
- The Thaetes sued Dr. Fry and St. Luke’s for medical malpractice, and the district court granted summary judgment after excluding late or unsupported expert materials. 2
- The court struck the Thaetes’ August 28 expert declarations and August 29 supplemental response as untimely and prejudicial. 3
- The district court ruled Dr. McIlraith lacked foundation to opine on the community standard of care and that Nurse Chisum disclosed no breach opinion. 4
- The Thaetes timely filed but did not serve their notice of appeal, prompting a dismissal motion by Respondents. 5
- The Idaho Supreme Court reversed in part, holding service of a notice of appeal is not jurisdictional, but affirming the exclusion of Nurse Chisum and summary judgment for St. Luke’s. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is failure to serve notice of appeal jurisdictional? 7 | Thaetes said only filing is jurisdictional; service defects are sanctionable, not fatal. | Respondents said filing and service are both jurisdictional and require dismissal. | Service is not jurisdictional; dismissal was unwarranted. 8 |
| Were the August 28 declaration and August 29 response properly stricken? 9 | Thaetes said the filings were late only because of conflicting deadlines and harmless. | Respondents said both filings violated the August 22 deadline and prejudiced them. | Declaration should not have been fully stricken; supplemental response properly struck. 10 |
| Did Dr. McIlraith have foundation to testify on standard of care? 11 | Thaetes said Dr. McIlraith relied on Dr. Fry’s testimony, hospital policy, and common-sense standards. | Respondents said he lacked actual knowledge of the Twin Falls standard of care. | Yes; foundation was sufficient under sections 6-1012 and 6-1013. 12 |
| Did Nurse Chisum disclose a breach opinion? 13 | Thaetes said her disclosure implied nursing breach through context and standards described. | Respondents said the disclosure stated only the standard, not breach. | No; the disclosure omitted any breach opinion. 14 |
| Was summary judgment proper? 15 | Thaetes said admissible expert testimony created factual disputes on Dr. Fry’s negligence. | Respondents said without admissible expert support, the claim failed. | Reversed as to Dr. Fry; affirmed as to St. Luke’s. 16 |
Key Cases Cited
- Summerfield v. St. Luke’s McCall, Ltd., 169 Idaho 221 (Idaho 2021) (summary judgment and expert-admissibility standards in medical malpractice 17)
- Owen v. Smith, 168 Idaho 633 (Idaho 2021) (summary judgment standard 18)
- Fisk v. McDonald, 167 Idaho 870 (Idaho 2020) (expert foundation requires facts showing actual knowledge of community standard 19)
- Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856 (Idaho 2018) (four-part abuse-of-discretion test 20)
- Dlouhy v. Kootenai Hosp. Dist., 167 Idaho 639 (Idaho 2020) (out-of-area expert may rely on national standard if familiarized with local deviation 21)
- Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468 (Idaho 2014) (common-sense approach to expert familiarity with community standard 22)