Lepper v. Eastern Idaho Health Services, Inc., 369 P.3d 882

Background

Charles Lepper underwent lumbar surgery; post-op complications at Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center allegedly went unreported to surgeon Dr. Maraño, resulting in delayed MRI and permanent paraplegia.
The Leppers sued EIRMC and Dr. Maraño for medical malpractice and disclosed two experts (Dr. DeLong and Elizabeth Arruda) by the court-ordered expert disclosure deadline; disclosures contained opinions but did not state familiarity with the local standard of care.
Defendants moved to exclude the experts for failing to disclose foundational proof of familiarity with the local standard of care under Idaho Code §§ 6-1012/6-1013; the district court struck the experts, denied reconsideration, and granted summary judgment for defendants.
The Leppers submitted supplemental expert affidavits after the disclosure deadline showing how each expert established familiarity with the applicable standard (Arruda via local nursing contacts and regulatory sources; DeLong via consultation with an out-of-state neurosurgeon after in-state neurosurgeons would not opine).
The Idaho Supreme Court considered whether the district court abused its discretion by reading into its Scheduling Order a requirement to disclose foundational facts (standard-of-care familiarity) when the order only required experts’ names, opinions, and conclusions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Scheduling Order required disclosure of foundational facts (expert familiarity with local standard of care)	Scheduling Order only required experts’ names, opinions, and conclusions; foundational facts need not be disclosed absent explicit order	“Opinions and conclusions” necessarily include foundational proof under Idaho Code §§ 6-1012/6-1013	Court held the Scheduling Order did not require foundational disclosures; district court abused its discretion in reading those requirements into the order
Whether exclusion of experts (DeLong, Arruda) was proper sanction under I.R.C.P. 16(i) / discovery rules	Exclusion was improper because experts’ opinions were timely disclosed and foundational facts were not required by the scheduling order; supplemental affidavits established familiarity	Exclusion proper because experts failed to show familiarity with local standard by the disclosure deadline, making testimony inadmissible	Court held exclusion was an abuse of discretion; supplemental affidavits should have been considered when ruling on summary judgment
Whether district court erred denying/plaintiffs’ and granting/defendants’ motions for reconsideration	Motions for reconsideration should have been granted to allow consideration of timely supplemental affidavits and minimal delay	Reconsideration unwarranted; plaintiffs had not complied with disclosure obligations and additional delay would prejudice defendants	Court held district court abused discretion in denying plaintiffs’ reconsideration and in granting defendants’ reconsideration because its underlying premise was erroneous
Whether summary judgment for defendants was proper without plaintiffs’ experts	Plaintiffs argued summary judgment improper because supplemental affidavits created genuine issues of material fact regarding standard of care and causation	Without admissible expert testimony meeting § 6-1013 foundation, plaintiffs cannot establish prima facie malpractice case	Court vacated summary judgment, holding district court erred by excluding experts and therefore by not considering their affidavits; remanded for further proceedings

Key Cases Cited

Edmunds v. Kraner, 142 Idaho 867, 136 P.3d 338 (Idaho 2006) (trial court abused discretion excluding expert material that was not required by the pretrial order)
Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 137 Idaho 160, 45 P.3d 816 (Idaho 2002) (standard for admissibility of medical expert testimony)
Easterling v. Kendall, 159 Idaho 902, 367 P.3d 1214 (Idaho 2016) (example of a scheduling order requiring full Rule 26(b)(4) expert disclosures)
Hoene v. Barnes, 121 Idaho 752, 828 P.2d 315 (Idaho 1992) (similar-localities principle for establishing applicable standard of care)
Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of America, Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 337 P.3d 627 (Idaho 2014) (expert may rely on regulations and authoritative sources to establish familiarity with local standard of care)
Morris v. Thomson, 130 Idaho 138, 937 P.2d 1212 (Idaho 1997) (discussing foundation requirements for expert testimony in malpractice cases)
Perry v. Magic Valley Reg’l Med. Ctr., 134 Idaho 46, 995 P.2d 816 (Idaho 2000) (expert must be familiar with the standard of care for the relevant community and explain how familiarity was obtained)