Mattox v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.
157 Idaho 468
| Idaho | 2014Background
- Resident Rosamond Mattox (age 88) fell repeatedly at Life Care of Lewiston (LCL) in 2008, suffered a femur fracture after a fall on Oct. 31, 2008, and died Nov. 1, 2008; her son Gene sued for medical malpractice, alleging LCL failed to follow physician orders and the care plan to prevent falls, causing her death.
- LCL moved for summary judgment, submitting a brief affidavit from its Director of Nursing asserting compliance with the standard of care.
- Gene submitted expert affidavits from Dr. Jayme Mackay (Mattox’s primary care physician) and nurse expert Wendy Thomason (out-of-area RN), alleging breaches of the care plan and regulations; Thomason relied on interviews (including with Dr. Mackay and a local nursing professor), records, and state/federal regulations.
- The district court struck both expert affidavits for failing to show "actual knowledge" of the local standard of care (Idaho Code § 6-1013) and granted summary judgment for LCL for lack of admissible expert proof of breach/proximate cause.
- The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed de novo the admissibility threshold (applying abuse-of-discretion to evidentiary rulings) and held the district court abused its discretion in excluding both affidavits, vacated the dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings; costs on appeal awarded to Gene.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility threshold under I.C. § 6-1013 (must show expert has "actual knowledge" of local standard) | Affidavits show how experts acquired local standard knowledge (physician orders, frequent nursing exchanges, interviews, regulations) | Affidavits fail to demonstrate actual knowledge of the local standard for Lewiston-area skilled nursing facilities in Oct. 2008 | Court: The trial court abused its discretion by excluding the affidavits; practice-oriented factual showings (orders, exchanges, interviews, regs) suffice to demonstrate actual knowledge when reasonably alleged |
| Sufficiency of Dr. Mackay’s affidavit | Mackay developed and issued the orders, regularly exchanged ~30 nursing communications in 2008, and was Mattox’s primary care physician — demonstrating familiarity with the standard governing compliance with his orders | LCL: Mackay is not a nurse and gave no explicit, formulaic statement of having local-standard knowledge; affidavit is conclusory | Court: Mackay’s affidavit provided adequate foundation; as the ordering physician with frequent interactions he could establish actual knowledge; exclusion was an abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of Nurse Thomason’s affidavit (out-of-area expert) | Thomason relied on interviews (including Mackay and Lewis‑Clark professor Debbie Lemon), federal/state nursing-facility regulations, facility care plan, and record-based noncompliance rates — demonstrating familiarity with the applicable standard | LCL: Interviews didn’t show the interviewees had actual local-standard knowledge; professorial role doesn’t prove knowledge of the 2008 Lewiston standard | Court: Thomason sufficiently showed how she learned the local standard (through interview with Mackay, local nurse educator/consultant, and by citing state/federal regulations that set minimum standards); exclusion was an abuse of discretion |
| Grant of summary judgment to LCL | Gene argued that, with the expert affidavits admitted, genuine issues of breach and proximate cause remain and summary judgment for LCL was inappropriate; he alternatively sought SJ in his favor on appeal | LCL argued absence of admissible expert proof justified SJ in its favor | Court: Because the district court improperly excluded admissible expert affidavits, genuine issues of material fact exist and the grant of summary judgment to LCL was erroneous; vacated and remanded. The Court declined to grant SJ for Gene on appeal as that ground is not reviewable when plaintiff did not move below |
Key Cases Cited
- Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 137 Idaho 160 (expert must show how they became familiar with local standard; anonymous/local source insufficient) (2002)
- Arregui v. Gallegos-Main, 153 Idaho 801 (out-of-area expert relying on unidentified/local consultant can be inadequate where no facts show consultant knew the specific local standard) (2012)
- Newberry v. Martens, 142 Idaho 284 (an expert can demonstrate actual knowledge of another specialty’s local standard through regular professional interaction and referrals) (2005)
- Suhadolnik v. Pressman, 151 Idaho 110 (statewide/national standards can supplant a local standard when shown to govern the care at issue) (2011)
- McDaniel v. Inland Nw. Renal Care Grp.-Idaho, LLC, 144 Idaho 219 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; requirements for affidavit foundation under Rule 56) (2008)
- Bybee v. Gorman, 157 Idaho 169 (court should not demand formulaic recital of how an out-of-area expert learned the local standard; practical showings may suffice) (2014)