Kirk Hartman, Individually, and as Surviving Spouse of Sheri Hartman; Kirk Hartman, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sheri Hartman; Ashley Hartman Roberts; Jordan Hartman; and Josh Hartman v. Pocatello Hospital, LLC dba Portneuf Medical Center, LLC; Dr. Amber Schroeder, P.A.; Dr. Willis Parmley; Rocky Mountain Physician Group, LLC; Dr. Stephen Hansen; Idaho Sports and Spine, LLC

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court reviews discovery sanctions and summary judgment in a medical malpractice action arising from Sheri Hartman’s death after treatment with transdermal fentanyl patches. The court holds that plaintiffs must disclose non-testifying local standard-of-care experts consulted by testifying experts and affirms the sanctions striking the plaintiffs’ liability experts. It reverses summary judgment on proximate causation as to Portneuf Medical Center, holding that the relevant foreseeability inquiry concerns the general risk of harm rather than the precise mechanism of injury, and remands for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. In a medical-malpractice action, a plaintiff must disclose the identity of any non-testifying local standard-of-care expert who provides information relied on by a testifying expert, regardless of whether the local expert was a primary or secondary source of information.
2. The district court acted within its discretion in striking plaintiffs' liability experts under Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 16(e) and 37(c)(1) because plaintiffs intentionally failed to timely disclose their non-testifying local standard-of-care experts, the failure was not substantially justified or harmless, and defendants were prejudiced.
3. Summary judgment on actual causation was improper because competing expert testimony created a genuine dispute over whether the defendants' dispensing and administration of the initial fentanyl patch was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's death.
4. To withstand summary judgment on proximate causation, a medical-malpractice plaintiff must show that a reasonable medical provider in the defendant's position could have foreseen the general risk of harm from the allegedly negligent treatment; the plaintiff need not show foreseeability of the precise mechanism by which the injury occurred.
5. Partial attorney fees were properly awarded against plaintiffs for pursuing the appeal of the expert-striking orders frivolously, unreasonably, and without foundation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs were required to disclose the identities of non-testifying local standard-of-care experts who provided information to their testifying experts, even when the testifying experts primarily relied on defendants' deposition testimony.
2. Whether the district court acted within its discretion under the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure in striking plaintiffs' liability experts as a discovery sanction for untimely and incomplete disclosure.
3. Whether summary judgment on actual and proximate causation was proper when competing expert testimony existed regarding whether fentanyl patches administered by the defendants substantially contributed to the decedent's death.
4. Whether foreseeability of proximate cause requires proof of the specific pharmacokinetic mechanism of injury or only the general risk of harm created by the alleged negligent treatment.
5. Whether partial attorney fees should be awarded because plaintiffs' appeal of the discovery sanctions was frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded