Opinion ID: 2575425
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Hollander

Text: Prior to deciding St. Alphonsus's motion for summary judgment, the district court, upon St. Alphonsus's motion, struck the supplemental affidavit of Dr. Hollander. After determining that the affidavit of Dr. Dajani did not contain adequate foundation as to the local standard of care, the district court examined Dr. Hollander's two affidavits. The court found that the first affidavit, which was timely filed under the pre-trial order, did not address the standard of care for pharmacists. Turning to Dr. Hollander's second affidavit, the lower court noted that it was not filed until almost a year after the discovery deadline for the naming of expert witnesses, two months before trial, and determined that because it contained opinions based on the single-daily dosing regime as the local standard of care and opinions regarding pharmacists' standard of care that were not contained in his first affidavit, the issue of admissibility turned on whether it was filed too late. The court then struck the affidavit as being untimely under its discovery order and I.R.C.P. 26. As a threshold matter, to be admissible in a medical malpractice action, expert testimony must demonstrate the expert's familiarity with the applicable standard of care for a particular profession for the relevant community and time, and the proponent must show the basis for the expert's knowledge. Perry v. Magic Valley Reg'l Med. Ctr., 134 Idaho 46, 51, 995 P.2d 816, 821 (2000). Idaho Code §§ 6-1012 and 6-1013 impose requirements on an expert's testimony in a medical malpractice case. Idaho Code § 6-1012 requires a plaintiff to affirmatively prove by direct expert testimony that the health care provider negligently failed to meet the community standard of health care, as it existed at the time and place of the alleged negligent act. Idaho Code § 6-1013 requires that the expert must show that he or she actually holds the opinion, that it is held with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and that he or she is not only an expert but has actual knowledge of the applicable community standard. Kolln, 130 Idaho at 329, 940 P.2d at 1148. However, the district court did not base its decision to strike Dr. Hollander's second affidavit on a failure to lay an adequate foundation as required by these sections. Instead, the decision was based on the timeliness of the disclosure of the opinions set forth in the affidavit and based on a pretrial order that only ordered the disclosure of the names of expert witnesses. The district court believed that its very brief order governing the timing of expert witness disclosure somehow superseded the statutes and rules surrounding such disclosures in medical malpractice cases. This belief was incorrect. As a result, the lower court's actions were outside the boundaries of applicable legal principles and an abuse of discretion. First, the order governing expert witness disclosure simply stated: Plaintiff's experts to be disclosed by April 14, 2003. There was no indication that this disclosure must contain any information relating to the local standard of care. It simply required that the names of the Edmunds' experts be disclosed by a certain date. Second, Idaho law specifically contemplates that expert testimony can change after the initial disclosure. Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(B) requires that litigants supplement discovery responses as to the identity of each person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial, the subject matter on which the person is expected to testify, and the substance of the person's testimony. This Court has held that this rule unambiguously imposes a continuing duty to supplement responses to discovery with respect to the substance and subject matter of an expert's testimony where the initial responses have been rejected, modified, expanded upon or otherwise altered in some manner. Clark v. Klein, 137 Idaho 154, 157, 45 P.3d 810, 813 (2002) (quoting Radmer v. Ford Motor Co., 120 Idaho 86, 813 P.2d 897 (1991)) (emphasis added). In fact, litigants are subject to sanctions, including the exclusion of expert testimony, when they have failed to supplement an expert's opinion. See, e.g., Radmer, 120 Idaho at 91, 813 P.2d at 902. Third, it does not change the above analysis that the opinion contained in Dr. Hollander's second affidavit is virtually identical to the opinion of Dr. Rotschafer. St. Alphonsus makes much of this fact, arguing that this affidavit was nothing but the Edmunds' attempt to circumvent the trial court's earlier decision excluding Dr. Rotschafer's untimely opinions. However, because the change in Dr. Hollander's opinion affects only his credibility, it should not be addressed by a trial judge at summary judgment, see Stanley v. Lennox Indus., Inc., 140 Idaho 785, 788-89, 102 P.3d 1104, 1107-08 (2004), and cannot serve as the basis for striking his affidavit. Likewise, any similarity between Dr. Rotschafer's and Dr. Hollander's opinion cannot serve as the basis for striking Dr. Hollander's testimony because Dr. Rotschafer's testimony was excluded based on procedure, not on the substance of his testimony. Nothing in Idaho law prevents experts from consulting each other or from holding the same opinion. Additionally, the Edmunds supplemented Dr. Hollander's initial opinion in October, 2003. This supplement meets the requirements of I.R.C.P. 26(e)(1)(B) and coming eight months before trial is a seasonable supplementation of Dr. Hollander's opinion. The drafters of Rule 26 noted that seasonably was very imprecise and left considerable discretion to the trial judge. Hopkins v. Duo-Fast Corp., 123 Idaho 205, 213, 846 P.2d 207, 215 (1993) (Bakes, C.J., concurring). This Court has not yet announced a more precise definition of seasonably. However, as Justice Bakes noted in Hopkins: an important inquiry in determining whether a response was given `seasonably' is: was the opposing party given an opportunity for full cross examination? If `yes,' then there probably would be no abuse of discretion in admitting the testimony. 123 Idaho at 213, 846 P.2d at 215 (Bakes, C.J. concurring) (citing Radmer v. Ford Motor Co., 120 Idaho 86, 813 P.2d 897 (1991)). St. Alphonsus was afforded a full opportunity not only to cross-examine Dr. Hollander as to these newly expressed opinions because the supplementation was eight months prior to trial, but also to undertake additional discovery at no or very little additional cost as they had not yet deposed Dr. Hollander. Therefore, the supplementation of Dr. Hollander's opinion was seasonable. Here, the trial court's decision essentially added the requirements of I.C. §§ 6-1012 and 6-1013 to his pretrial order, which did not give the Edmunds notice that they would be held to this standard in their initial disclosures, and ignored that Idaho law and rules of civil procedure contemplate that expert opinions can change and develop during the course of litigation. The pretrial order and subsequent decision also denied the Edmunds an opportunity to respond to or rebut St. Alphonsus's evidence. Moreover, this decision was based on an incorrect understanding of discovery procedure. While a court may properly order parties to disclose expert witnesses by a deadline, a brief order dictating the date of disclosing only the names of expert witnesses cannot trump the requirement of I.R.C.P. 26(e)(1)(B) that parties seasonably supplement their discovery responses as new information is learned or expert opinions change. This does not mean a trial judge cannot issue a more detailed pretrial order for orderly discovery in complicated cases that would further clarify the general rules of discovery. Dr. Hollander's supplementation of his opinion was reasonable under I.R.C.P. 26(e)(i)(B) and the Court holds that the decision to strike Dr. Hollander's supplemental affidavit was an abuse of discretion. By so holding, we are not sanctioning either party's conduct. It certainly appears that counsel for each side engaged in strategies inconsistent with the spirit of our discovery rules. Our pretrial procedure rules have certainly created a more active and managerial role for the judge in the adjudication process. See I.R.C.P. 16, 26; see also Judith Resnick, Managerial Judges, 96 Harv. L.Rev. 374, 378-79 (1982) (noting that federal pretrial procedure rules have increased the judicial role in managing pretrial phases of cases, calling on them to be mediators, negotiators and planners, as well as adjudicators). However, much of the responsibility for the orderly movement of a case to conclusion lies first with the attorneys themselves. Yet, courts also must maintain order in this process when their leadership is necessary. It is clear under our rules that courts must remain disinterested, but may not proceed disconnected from the case. We expect trial courts to actively manage discovery through the use of appropriate pretrial orders and pretrial conferences.