Noak v. Idaho Department of Correction, 152 Idaho 305

271 P.3d 703 (2012) · Supreme Court of Idaho · January 6, 2012 · No. No. 37788

Summary

The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed summary judgment for the Idaho Department of Correction and Richard D. Haas in claims arising from John F. Noak’s removal and termination as a prison medical director. The court held that Noak could not maintain a good-faith-and-fair-dealing claim against IDOC absent a contractual relationship, that his tort claims against IDOC were barred by the Idaho Tort Claims Act’s statute of limitations, and that Idaho Code § 54-1818 immunized Haas’s communications to the Idaho Board of Medicine. The court also affirmed an attorney-fee award to IDOC and awarded IDOC fees on appeal regarding the contract claim.

Holdings

  1. A party who is not in a contractual relationship with the defendant cannot maintain a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Because Noak conceded that he had no contract with IDOC, IDOC was entitled to summary judgment on that claim.
  2. Noak's tort claims against IDOC were barred because he filed the action outside the two-year limitations period in the Idaho Tort Claims Act.
  3. Section 1367(d) did not toll the Idaho Tort Claims Act's two-year limitations period for Noak's claims against IDOC after the federal action was voluntarily dismissed.
  4. Idaho Code § 54-1818 immunizes any person from civil liability for communications, reports, or acts made, given, or handled under the Medical Practice Act, including a layperson's report to the Idaho Board of Medicine concerning physician conduct.
  5. IDOC was entitled to attorney fees because Noak alleged a claim based on a contract relating to services, even though he was not ultimately able to establish contractual liability.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether IDOC could be liable for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when Noak was not a party to IDOC's contract with PHS.
  2. Whether Noak's tort claims against IDOC were barred by the two-year statute of limitations in the Idaho Tort Claims Act.
  3. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) tolled the Idaho Tort Claims Act limitations period after Noak's federal action was voluntarily dismissed.
  4. Whether Idaho Code § 54-1818 immunized Haas from defamation and emotional-distress claims based on his communication to the Idaho Board of Medicine.
  5. Whether IDOC was entitled to attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (14)

  • Hoyle v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co., 137 Idaho 367, 371, 48 P.3d 1256, 1260 (2002)(followed)
  • Farber v. Idaho State Insurance Fund, 147 Idaho 307, 310, 208 P.3d 289, 292 (2009)(followed)
  • Idaho Power Co. v. Cogeneration, Inc., 134 Idaho 738, 750, 9 P.3d 1204, 1214 (2000)(followed)
  • Tolley v. THI Co., 140 Idaho 253, 261, 92 P.3d 503, 511 (2004)(followed)
  • Harris v. State, Department of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 295, 298 n.1, 847 P.2d 1156, 1160 n.1 (1992)(followed)
  • Coonse v. Boise School District, 132 Idaho 803, 805, 979 P.2d 1161, 1163 (1999)(followed)
  • Walker v. Shoshone County, 112 Idaho 991, 993, 739 P.2d 290, 292 (1987)(followed)
  • Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533, 122 S. Ct. 999, 152 L. Ed. 2d 27 (2002)(followed)
  • Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 414, 99 S. Ct. 1182, 1185, 59 L. Ed. 2d 416 (1979)(followed)
  • Jinks v. Richland County, South Carolina, 538 U.S. 456, 465-66, 123 S. Ct. 1667, 1672-73, 155 L. Ed. 2d 631 (2003)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 14.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Idaho Supreme Court