Morrison v. St. Luke's Regional Medical Center, Ltd.
160 Idaho 599
| Idaho | 2016

Background

  • Mitchell Morrison presented to St. Luke’s ER on Dec. 26, 2011 with chest pain; Dr. Joachim Franklin evaluated him, ruled out acute MI, recommended he contact a cardiologist the next day and provided contact info; patient was discharged.
  • Mrs. Morrison (plaintiff) requested cardiology scheduling on Dec. 27; scheduler (who relied on a “Disposition” field indicating any requested time frame) did not find an urgent slot because Dr. Franklin did not specify a time frame; the earliest cardiology appointment given was weeks out; Mitchell Morrison died of a heart attack on Jan. 11, 2012.
  • Plaintiff sued Dr. Franklin, Emergency Medicine of Idaho, P.A. (EMI, Franklin’s employer), and St. Luke’s for wrongful death and negligence (including imputed liability and alleged failure to train/ensure referral-process knowledge). Case tried to a jury after partial summary judgment rulings.
  • District court struck portions of plaintiff’s out-of-state expert’s affidavit that relied on a post-deposition, previously undisclosed local physician (foundation issue), and granted EMI’s motion for partial summary judgment on EMI’s negligence claims for lack of admissible expert foundation.
  • Jury found Dr. Franklin did not breach the local standard of care. Plaintiff appealed multiple rulings (partial summary judgment as to EMI, denial of dismissal as settlement, limitation of defense proceedings, exclusion of certain witnesses). Appellate court affirmed and awarded fees to respondents.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether EMI’s motion for partial summary judgment should be denied because EMI was negligent in failing to ensure Dr. Franklin knew referral process Morrison: EMI had a duty to ensure physicians knew hospital referral/urgent scheduling process; expert opined EMI negligent EMI: Plaintiff lacks admissible expert testimony showing an applicable standard for an entity like EMI; no foundation under I.C. § 6-1013 Court: Affirmed partial SJ for EMI — struck expert opinion lacking foundation; plaintiff failed to show local standard for entity or prejudice; jury also found no physician breach
Whether district court erred by not finding a binding settlement with Franklin/EMI and dismissing them Morrison: Email exchange created binding settlement; dismissal should have been granted Franklin/EMI: No final agreement; release required written approval and had unresolved terms Court: Declined to review (no preserved adverse ruling); plaintiff later recovered in separate enforcement action; no new trial against St. Luke’s warranted
Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion to limit defense proceedings (prevent duplicate defenses/dual counsel) Morrison: Duplicate defenses unfair and prejudicial; should limit to one defense presentation Defendants: Each defendant entitled to present its own defense and experts; no record support of prejudice Court: Issue not preserved with record citations; no authority shown to force joint defense; no reversible error
Whether exclusion of two witnesses (Dr. Torres deposition excerpt and Dr. Worst) was erroneous and prejudicial Morrison: Torres’s testimony factual and relevant; Worst should be permitted though retained by defense Defendants: Deposition testimony either irrelevant or undisclosed expert opinion; Worst was opposing-party expert and plaintiff failed to comply with rules Court: Affirmed exclusions on alternative grounds (relevance/expert disclosure and lack of record showing unavailability); plaintiff showed no substantial-rights prejudice

Key Cases Cited

  • Schmechel v. Dillé, 148 Idaho 176, 219 P.3d 1192 (2009) (district court’s evidentiary decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
  • Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 137 Idaho 160, 45 P.3d 816 (2002) (plaintiff must present expert testimony showing defendant failed to meet applicable community standard in malpractice cases)
  • Suhadolnik v. Pressman, 151 Idaho 110, 254 P.3d 11 (2011) (out-of-area expert must demonstrate familiarity with local standard or foundation showing national standard applies)
  • Rife v. Long, 127 Idaho 841, 908 P.2d 143 (1996) (factors for recognizing or extending duties; balancing harms test)
  • Vincent v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 136 Idaho 107, 29 P.3d 943 (2001) (approach to recognizing new duties involves balancing harms)
  • Minich v. Gem State Developers, Inc., 99 Idaho 911, 591 P.2d 1078 (1979) (standards for awarding appellate attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-121)
Read the full case