Martha A. Arregui v. Rosalinda Gallegos-Main, 291 P.3d 1000

Martha Arregui sued chiropractor Rosalinda Gallegos-Main (and facility Full Life Chiropractic) for medical malpractice after a neck manipulation allegedly caused a stroke.
Arregui’s theory required expert testimony on the local standard of care in the Nampa-Caldwell area under Idaho law.
Dr. Tamai, Arregui’s expert, admitted in deposition she had no knowledge of Idaho local standards or the Nampa-Caldwell standard.
Tamai later filed an affidavit claiming familiarity with the local standard, based on a California practice and a local chiropractor’s input.
Gallegos-Main moved to strike Tamai’s affidavit as untimely and sham; the district court struck it and granted summary judgment against Arregui.
Arregui sought reconsideration; the district court reaffirmed its rulings, and Arregui appealed challenging both the admissibility of Tamai’s affidavit and the summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Tamai’s affidavit properly struck as untimely?	Arregui asserts timely filing and admissibility under 56(e) and foundation rules.	Gallegos-Main contends affidavit was untimely and a sham to avoid summary judgment.	Yes; affidavit untimely and properly struck.
Did the district court err by granting summary judgment without Tamai’s affidavit?	Tamai’s affidavit would establish the local standard of care; without it, Arregui lacked direct evidence.	Tamai’s deposition showed no knowledge of local standard; no genuine issue remains.	No; summary judgment proper without timely admissible local standard testimony.
Did the district court err in denying reconsideration?	Tamai’s affidavit should be admitted; reconsideration arguments raised new grounds about chiropractors and Act applicability.	No error; district court correctly applied law and relied on Dulaney foundations.	No; denial affirmed.
Is Dr. Gallegos-Main entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal?	No frivolousness; arguments raised, including statutory reach to chiropractors, were reasonably disputed.	Prevailing party should recover fees under 12-121 due to frivolity or lack of foundation.	No; fees denied; costs awarded to Gallegos-Main.

Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 137 Idaho 160 (2002) (four foundational elements for admissibility of expert testimony under 6-1013)
Sun Valley Potatoes, Inc. v. Rosholt, Robertson & Tucker, 133 Idaho 1 (1999) (14-day deadline purpose to give moving party opportunity to respond)
Jones v. Crawforth, 147 Idaho 11 (2009) (broad interpretation of health-care provider under 6-1012)
Suhadolnik v. Pressman, 151 Idaho 110 (2011) (requires specific foundation for expert testimony; familiarity with standard of care)
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) ( Rule 59/e considerations; reconsideration standards (Ninth Circuit citation))