Edmunds v. Kraner, 142 Idaho 867

Summary

The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed a medical malpractice action involving alleged gentamicin-related injuries and summary judgment for St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center. The court upheld the exclusion of an untimely expert witness but held that the trial court abused its discretion by striking a supplemental expert affidavit under the applicable discovery rules. Because the affidavit was admissible and raised genuine issues regarding the applicable standard of care, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Dr. Rotschafer's testimony because the disclosure occurred after the court-ordered deadline and the Edmunds failed to demonstrate an acceptable reason to extend the discovery deadlines.
2. The district court abused its discretion by striking Dr. Hollander's supplemental affidavit as untimely where the pretrial order required disclosure only of expert names and Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(B) required seasonable supplementation of expert testimony.
3. Summary judgment for St. Alphonsus was improper because Dr. Hollander's supplemental affidavit was admissible and, together with St. Alphonsus's expert affidavits, created a genuine issue of material fact concerning the applicable local standard of care and whether it was breached.
4. The district court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the Edmunds' request to limit the number of expert witnesses as a discovery matter.
5. The court did not decide whether the district court committed reversible error by adopting St. Alphonsus's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law verbatim because reversal of the summary judgment ruling made resolution of that issue unnecessary.
6. St. Alphonsus was not entitled to attorney's fees on appeal because it was not the prevailing party.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding Dr. Rotschafer's untimely disclosed expert testimony.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by striking Dr. Hollander's supplemental affidavit as untimely.
3. Whether Dr. Hollander's supplemental affidavit created a genuine issue of material fact concerning the applicable standard of care and St. Alphonsus's alleged breach.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to limit the number of expert witnesses during discovery.
5. Whether the district court's verbatim adoption of St. Alphonsus's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law constituted reversible error.
6. Whether St. Alphonsus was entitled to attorney's fees on appeal.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded