Opinion ID: 2634645
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the Board of Medicine's Finding as to the Applicable Standard of Care Clearly Erroneous?

Text: The Board's determination that a physician has violated the standard of care must be supported by expert testimony establishing the community's generally accepted standard of care, taking into account the circumstances of each case under scrutiny and the physician's training and experience and the degree of his or her expertise portrayed to the public. Laurino v. Board of Prof'l Discipline of the Idaho State Bd. of Med., 137 Idaho 596, 51 P.3d 410 (2002); IDAHO CODE § 54-1814 (2003). The Board decides the weight to be given expert testimony regarding the standard of care. Laurino v. Board of Prof'l Discipline of the Idaho State Bd. of Med., 137 Idaho 596, 51 P.3d 410 (2002). The Board found credible the expert physicians it called to testify. The hearing officer's findings, which the Board adopted, stated, The Board's expert physician witnesses agreed on most aspects of female hormone replacement therapy. They also appeared to be representative of the community. They also clearly possessed the education, training and experience to render opinions upon this area of medical practice. Dr. Haw argues that the Board should not have believed those experts. This Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Board as to the weight of the evidence. Pearl v. Board of Prof'l Discipline of the Idaho State Bd. of Med., 137 Idaho 107, 44 P.3d 1162 (2002). The Board's findings as to the standard of care are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.