SUHADOLNIK v. Pressman
151 Idaho 110
| Idaho | 2011Background
- This is a medical malpractice case arising from a cataract operation performed by Dr. Pressman on Franz Suhadolnik.
- Plaintiffs allege negligent care and lack of informed consent due to failure to inquire about prior Flomax use and disclosure of associated risks.
- Evidence showed Suhadolnik started Flomax in Dec. 2005; a preoperative clearance and forms in May 2006 listed Flomax, but the surgeon allegedly did not review this information before surgery.
- During surgery on May 31, 2006, complications occurred (lens dislocation/irregular capsule) resulting in continued legal blindness in the affected eye.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment; district court granted, excluding Dr. Hofbauer’s affidavit for lack of proven knowledge of the local standard of care.
- Court of appeals affirms the district court’s exclusion and the grant of summary judgment to defendants; costs on appeal awarded to respondents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Hofbauer affidavit | Hofbauer adequately familiarized with Boise standard via Pressman deposition and records. | Hofbauer failed to demonstrate actual knowledge of the local standard. | Affirmed district court; Hofbauer failed to show actual knowledge of local standard. |
| Informed consent claim preservation | Informed consent theory was part of the malpractice claim; not separately addressed, still preserved. | Informed consent issue not properly raised on appeal; waived. | Waived on appeal. |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Standard for fee shifting should apply. | Prevailing party may recover under statute if frivolous. | No award of attorney fees on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 137 Idaho 160 (2002) (admissibility standard for expert testimony in medical malpractice)
- Kozlowski v. Rush, 121 Idaho 825 (1992) (local standard via deposition review and local consultation)
- Perry v. Magic Valley Reg'l Med. Ctr., 134 Idaho 46 (2000) (local vs national standard via deposition and local contacts)
- Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208 (1994) (deposition alone may be insufficient without local standard articulation)
- Hayward v. Jack's Pharmacy Inc., 141 Idaho 622 (2005) (federal regulation can replace local standard if established)
- Grover v. Smith, 137 Idaho 247 (2002) (state licensing standards can replace local standard in dentistry)
- Shane v. Blair, 139 Idaho 126 (2003) (out-of-area expert familiarity via local contacts)
- Newberry v. Martens, 142 Idaho 284 (2005) (local expert corroboration permitted from other sources)
- McDaniel v. Inland Northwest Renal Care Group-Idaho, LLC, 144 Idaho 219 (2007) (reiterates standard for expert testimony and local knowledge)