380 P.3d 681
Idaho2016Background
- J.H., a female child born five weeks premature and first-born, showed asymmetrical skin folds and parental concern about leg length at multiple well-baby visits with Dr. Scott Shappard between 2008–2009; Shappard did not diagnose developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH).
- J.H. was later diagnosed with DDH by orthopedists; definitive treatment (open reduction) occurred in 2012 at age four, with possible future complications and multiple hip replacements projected.
- The Hoffers sued Providers for malpractice; a jury found Dr. Shappard negligent and reckless, apportioned 80% fault to him and 20% to Dr. Waters, and awarded $289,000 noneconomic and $750,000 economic damages (later challenged as the parties disputed whether the non-economic/economic numbers were reversed).
- Providers moved post-trial for correction of the verdict, JNOV, and a new trial; the district court denied those motions and refused to send Exhibit LL (a Pediatrics article with a diagnostic algorithm) into the jury room; Providers appealed.
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed: it upheld the trial court’s rulings on excluding Exhibit LL from deliberations, on jury instructions (negligence and recklessness together), on denying correction based on juror affidavits (I.R.E. 606(b)), on sufficiency of evidence for damages, and awarded appellate attorney fees to the Hoffers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hoffers) | Defendant's Argument (Providers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exhibit LL (learned treatise) must be sent to jury during deliberations | Article used at trial; jurors saw algorithm and plaintiffs consented to admission as learned treatise only | Jury should have the article (I.R.E. 803(18) and I.C. §9-402); counsel told jurors they'd see it | Court upheld refusal: no good cause to send full article; learned treatises generally not sent to jury and error (if any) was harmless |
| Whether court erred by instructing on recklessness along with negligence | No objection to simultaneous instructions; no need to bifurcate | Recklessness should be submitted only after negligence finding; could confuse jurors | Court held simultanous instructions permissible; no evidence jury was confused; no bifurcation required |
| Whether juror affidavits may be used to correct an alleged clerical error on verdict form (Rule 606(b)) | Affidavits from two jurors showed numbers were transposed; sought ministerial correction | Rule 606(b) bars juror testimony about deliberations; but federal amendment permits correcting clerical mistakes | Court held I.R.E. 606(b) precludes such affidavits; Idaho has not adopted federal 2006 exception, so no correction permitted |
| Sufficiency of evidence for lost future earnings and denial of JNOV/new trial | Economic and vocational experts provided present-value lost earnings tied to impairment and future surgeries; testimony supported award | Evidence speculative; insufficient medical foundation for vocational projections | Court held evidence substantial and competent; future lost earnings proven with reasonable certainty; denial of JNOV/new trial affirmed |
| Whether appellate attorneys’ fees should be awarded and applicable standard | Hoffers sought fees under I.C. §12-121; argued appeal was frivolous | Providers contested fee award and urged continued application of Rule 54(e)(2) standard | Court awarded fees under existing rule (appeal frivolous); announced it will restore broader statutory standard (“when justice so requires”) effective March 1, 2017 (prospective), but applied preexisting frivolous/unreasonable/without foundation standard to this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Blizzard v. Lundeby, 156 Idaho 204 (trial court broad discretion on new trial motions)
- Quick v. Crane, 111 Idaho 759 (trial court must explain reasoning on new-trial analysis)
- Schmechel v. Dillé, 148 Idaho 176 (standards for jury instructions and timing of recklessness instruction discussed)
- Levinger v. Mercy Med. Ctr., Nampa, 139 Idaho 192 (interpretation of Rule 606(b) and juror testimony limits)
- Umphrey v. Sprinkel, 106 Idaho 700 (pre-Rule 606(b) precedent on juror affidavits and clarifying verdicts)
- Bailey v. Sanford, 139 Idaho 744 (future lost earnings must be proven with reasonable certainty)
- Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Assocs., LLP, 157 Idaho 106 (reasonable certainty standard for prospective losses)