Loftus v. Snake River School District
942 P.2d 550
Idaho
1997
Check Treatment

*1 fees, attorney 180-day perhaps award of the time limit. The record shows adverse counsel, against pursuing an action with- telephone that the conversations between the proper investigation. Alternatively, she attorney hospital out Mitchells’ and the adminis- against could file a notice of tort claim her January not trator on 8 and did personnel provider trusted health care whose comply requirements with the of fault, hospital’s it the told her that was not 907. resulting potentially in embarrassment the Finally, malprac- we hold that the medical hospital Mrs. was led to be- when Mitchell prelitigation preempt ap- tice statutes do not hospital lieve the that it was not at fault. plication of the ITCA because both statutes Accusing misdeeds without an institution of specific purposes. are and serve different something adequate people an is not of basis Accordingly, grant the court’s gains hospital honor But now the do. summary judgment hospital in favor of the misleading benefit of Mrs. Mitchell. Section affirmed. easy provides an 6-906 of the Idaho Code suing the manufac- exit from the dilemma attorney appeal. No fees on Costs on adequate or em- turer without information appeal respondent. hospital a claim that barrassing the with told have no basis. Mrs. Mitchell was would TROUT, C.J., and and JOHNSON McDEVITT, JJ., concur. 180-day notice of period The time it claim should be tolled for the tort SCHROEDER, Justice, dissenting. against claim took to discover that the was respectfully I dissent from the Court’s con- Whether hospital, not the manufacturer. part 180-day notice clusion in IV.A. that the steps took that time Mrs. Mitchell within requirement the Idaho Tort Claims under satisfy provisions the notice frame began to run on the date of Mrs. Mitch- Act Tort Act should be determined Claims notes, § 6- As the Court ell’s overdose. the district court. against political provides that claims presented “within one subdivision shall be (180) eighty days from the date the

hundred reasonably arose or should have been

discovered, § 6- whichever is later.” not, hospital intentionally

906. Whether misrepresented the cause of the

personnel 942 P.2d 550 misrepresen- injury and this to Mrs. Mitchell discovery against delayed of the claim tation Gary LOFTUS, Plaintiff-Appellant- hospital. Cross-Respondent, concerning the cause Information reach, injuries hospital’s not was within DISTRICT, SCHOOL SNAKE RIVER hospital personnel mis- Mrs. Mitchell’s. Defendant-Respondent-Cross- would be that her claim led her to believe Appellant. manufacturer, the hos- against private claim would be nec- pital. No notice of tort No. 23147. Not until essary against the manufacturer. Idaho, Supreme Court of that there was manufacturer established Boise, May Term. it known to malfunction was equipment no actually her claim was Mitchell that Mrs. July 1997. negligence of one hospital for the

against the Rehearing Aug. Denied nurses. its Mitchell, counsel, placed and were Mrs. could file suit position. She

a difficult upon incom- based

against the manufacturer an run the risk of

plete information *2 Boise, Rumel, Plaintiff-Appel- for E.

John lant. P.L.L.C., Kidwell,

Holden, Crapo, &Hahn Falls, Defendant-Respondent. Idaho argued. Dale Storer W.
McDEVITT, Justice. arising a claim case from

This is (Lof- Gary suspension appellant, tus), at River Jun- who was teacher Snake (SRJH). appeals the High ior School judge finding that of the district decision District respondent, the River School Snake (District), authority Lof- had the pay pursuant without to I.C. 33-513. tus I. AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

FACTS undisputed in case that on No- It 1, 1994, Loftus and a student vember that resulted in had a confrontation SRJH (Board) Trustees of the District the Board of conducting hearing on December regarding conduct. Loftus was sub- Loftus’s suspended by the Board for two sequently days against the Dis- complaint

Loftus filed magistrate division of the requesting the trict times the court award Loftus three wages enter unpaid of Loftus’s amount declaratory judgment that the Board did suspend Loftus without power have 45-609(1) Brown, pay pursuant entering summary judgment. §§ to I.C. and 33- at 923 P.2d at 436. Loftus and the District filed cross-motions III. summary judgment. judge entered a memorandum decision find- THE HAD THE BOARD AUTHORITY *3 ing that Loftus was not to institute TO SUSPEND LOFTUS WITHOUT grievance proceeding prior to his § PAY UNDER I.C. 33-513 court action and that the Board did not have § argues that 33- The District legal authority suspend the to Loftus without suspend 513 authorizes the District to Loftus pay. magistrate judge The concluded that provides § pay. Idaho Code 33-513 subject the Board was to the the Board that provisions magis- of the Idaho Code. The following powers and shall have the duties: judge granted trate Loftus’s motion for sum- mary judgment. absence, suspend, grant leave of 5. To appealed The District to the district court. place probation discharge certificat- on or judge The district reversed the decision of professional personnel for a material ed magistrate judge the and remanded the case any regulations violation of lawful rules or magistrate judge. appealed to the of the board of trustees or of the state cross-appealed and the District to this Court. education, any conduct board of grounds for revoca- which could constitute II. teaching of a certificate. tion

STANDARD OF REVIEW 33-513(5). § “Suspend” is defined as office, This temporarily privilege, Court reviews lower court’s “to debar from a ruling summary judgment by on motion for stop payment and “to or fail to or function” applying properly applied the same standard obligations.” meet Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionaey ruling (10th 1993). originally court when on lower ed. 1187 Spokane the motion. Farm Bank Credit authority suspend” among the The “to of Stevenson, 270, 272, v. 125 Idaho 869 P.2d powers expressly granted to the Board. Ida- (1994). 1365, ap an 1367 When faced with § limi- no words of ho Code 33-513 contains peal summary judgment, from this Court preclude temporary sus- tation that would pleadings, deposi must determine whether pay. pensions without We hold that tions, file, together and admissions on with law, empowered state Board was affidavits, genuine no issue show there was 33-513, Loftus without fact, any moving as to material and that the Dist., Hunting County v. Sch. 129 See Clark party judgment as a matter of was entitled 634, 639-40, 628, 931 P.2d 633-34 Co., City Valley Valley law. Sun Sun (1997) (holding acting the school district was (1996). 106, 219, 221, 128 Idaho 912 P.2d 108 express powers). within its nonmoving party given is to be during oral ar- for Loftus stated Counsel of all favorable inferences which rea benefit gument that Loftus does before this Court sonably might be drawn from the evidence argue denied Loftus his not that the Board against the and all doubts are to be resolved Therefore, rights. do not process we due Stevenson, 272, party. 125 Idaho at moving an issue of whether there was address the free 869 P.2d at 1367. This Court exercises unjustified pay in this case. loss Downey questions of law. Chi review over Nampa Corp., ropractic Restaurant Clinic v. IV. (1995). 191, 900 P.2d 193 127 Idaho REQUIRED TO EX- LOFTUS WAS NOT Perkins, 189, 129 Idaho In Brown v. THE REMEDY HAUST GRIEVANCE (1996), that when this Court held P.2d IN THE FORTH AGREEMENT SET judg- summary parties file a motion for both A TO PURSUING JUDICIAL PRIOR facts, issues, and relying ment on the same PAYMENT REMEDY FOR WAGE theories, essentially stipulate that parties cross-appeal argues on The District genuine of material fact is no issue there ruling in magistrate judge erred from that the preclude the district court which would $10,000.” in damages in “an amount excess in Article grievance procedure, set forth Pancoast, at 1334. 121 Idaho at 829 P.2d agreement the Snake XVII of the between judg- requested District, present In the case and the River Education Association as follows: require not the use of the ment but did allowed procedure. disagree. grievance We Relief, as dam- his First Claim for On unpaid ages, times the amount three regarding the agreement of the The terms Loftus, in- owing wages and to Mr. due procedure griev- grievance indicate that the three times the cluding not limited to but procedure mandatory and fail- ance was not wages, procedure amount of both $110.30 would to utilize the ure by the any wages, withheld seeking additional prevent employee an from pay Loftus’ from Mr. judicial remedy. School District Section Article XVII of decision with its checks connection agreement purpose forth the sets *4 pay. suspend Mr. without grievance procedure: grievant A who believes individual his/her relief stated that Loftus’s first claim for may this rights have been violated use employment contract upon based Loftus’s grievance procedure for redress. District, days wages for two Loftus’s with the plead in The amount of Article XVII states: amounted $386.02. Section 5.6 $25,000. clearly less than this case was of this Procedure is Utilization Grievance deprive not intended to an individual of in its discretion court abused district courts, seeking through they redress if attorney denying fees. As the District so desire. case, is prevailing party in this the District attorney that the district Section 4.5.5 of Article XVII states entitled to fees before 12-120(1). § report appeal of the arbitrator shall be adviso- under I.C. “[t]he court and on ry only.” Welfare, ex rel. Department Health and Altman, 122 Idaho 842 v. Osborn necessary We conclude that it was not for 683, (1992). P.2d 688 pursue Loftus to file and action provided agreement for in the before

suit in the of the district division VI. court.

CONCLUSION V. finding affirm the court’s that We district authority under District had the ENTITLED AN THE DISTRICT IS TO suspend § Loftus without 33-513 AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES of the district court reverse the decision We 12-120(1) § UNDER I.C. attorney appeal fees on denying the District argues The District that the district proceedings and remand for consistent with denying court abused its discretion attorney opinion. award costs and this We attorney court fees. The district District appeal fees on to the District. request attorney denied the District’s § pursuant to I.C. 12-120 on the fees TROUT, C.J., and JOHNSON and specifically grounds that the District failed SCHROEDER, JJ., concur. $25,000. The plead an amount less than holding upon the in Pan court relied Justice, SILAK, concurring in the result. Dist., Irrigation 121 v. Indian Cove coast I the result reached concur in (1992). 984, In Pan- 829 P.2d clarify opinion, write to Court’s but 12-120(1) coast, § held that “I.C. this Court § pay under I.C. 33-513 suspension without of ‘the authorize the substitution does not necessarily constitute the withhold- does pleaded.”' proved’ ‘the amount amount § ing wages under I.C. 45-609. Pancoast, at 829 P.2d at 1334. 121 Idaho part § attorney pertinent reads as party requesting 45-609 In Pancoast plaintiff plead follows: defendant and the fees was the employer No may any withhold or divert 942 P.2d 554

portion employee’s of an wages unless: COMBES, Robert R. Claimant- Respondent, employer 1.The empow- law,.... ered to do so state or federal Idaho, STATE of INDUSTRIAL The Court has § determined that I.C. FUND, SPECIAL INDEMNITY empowers District to

n without Defendant-Appellant. thus, pay; Loftus’ claim under § 45-609 fails. The Court assumes ar- No. 23117. guendo suspension that a pay without Supreme Idaho, Court of fall prohibition under the against withholding Boise, April 1997 Term. wages, but does not decide that issue. No prior decision of this Court has deemed that July suspension pay would amount to a withholding wages subject provi- to the 45-609,

sions of I.C. opinion

should not be implying read as that it would

be.

I do not believe that the Court needs

decide, above, under Part IV that Loftus was grievance to exhaust the reme-

dy of the bargaining agreement collective pursuing remedy

before Wage under the

Claim Statute in magistrate division.

The Court’s completely decision Part III is

dispositive wage issue, of the claim

therefore Part IV is dicta.

Moreover, the District raised the issue on

cross-appeal as to whether the

court in determining erred that the District subject liability, including treble dam-

ages, Wage under the Claim Statute. The

Court’s decision here does not decide the interpretation

issue due to its of I.C. However, I am concerned the Court’s

statement that pursue judi- Loftus could remedy

cial wage claim statute without implying be read as magistrate judge was correct

ruling subject that the District was liability. That issue has never been Court,

squarely my addressed and in

view is implication not decided even here.