Lepper v. Eastern Idaho Health Services, Inc.

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the exclusion of plaintiffs’ medical-malpractice experts for failing to disclose foundational information concerning the applicable local standard of care. The court held that the scheduling order required disclosure of the experts’ opinions and conclusions but did not expressly require disclosure of all foundational requirements under Idaho Code sections 6-1012 and 6-1013. It vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the experts and granting summary judgment.

Holdings

1. A scheduling order requiring disclosure of expert witnesses, including their opinions and conclusions, does not by its plain language require disclosure of all foundational facts establishing the experts' familiarity with the applicable medical standard of care unless the order expressly requires that information.
2. The district court abused its discretion by excluding Dr. DeLong and Arruda for failing to disclose foundational information that was not required by the scheduling order.
3. The district court abused its discretion in denying the Leppers' motions for reconsideration and in granting the defendants' motion for reconsideration because those rulings rested on the same erroneous interpretation of the scheduling order.
4. The district court erred by granting summary judgment because it should have considered the Leppers' expert affidavits after the experts were improperly excluded.
5. The defendants were not entitled to attorney fees on appeal because they were not the prevailing parties.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by interpreting its scheduling order to require disclosure of foundational facts establishing the experts' competency and familiarity with the local standard of care.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding the Leppers' expert witnesses.
3. Whether the district court erred in its rulings on the parties' motions for reconsideration.
4. Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment to the defendants after excluding the experts.
5. Whether the defendants were entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

Disposition

vacated