In a recent decision, the Idaho Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling in a medical malpractice case, highlighting the importance of procedural integrity in the state’s prelitigation screening process for medical malpractice claims.
According to Idaho Code, a mandatory hearing process for all medical malpractice claims is required. The Idaho State Board of Medicine (ISBM) facilitates those proceedings, which are “informal and nonbinding, but nonetheless compulsory as a condition precedent to litigation.” I.C. § 6-1001. The Prelitigation Panel then provides the parties with a nonbinding advisory decision regarding the claim’s merits. See I.C. § 6-1004; I.C. § 6-1001. There is no record of the proceedings, and all evidence is returned to the parties upon completion of the prelitigation hearing process. I.C. § 6-1003. The statute specifically states that “[t]here shall be no judicial or other review or appeal of such matters” and that “[n]o party shall be obliged to comply with or otherwise [be] affected or prejudiced by the proposals, conclusions or suggestions of the panel.” I.C. § 6-1005.
PARTIES SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED OR PREJUDICED BY PRELITIGATION PROPOSALS
In Wiseman v. Rencher, et al., Jessica Wiseman and her children sued Dr. Nathan Rencher for the wrongful death of Eric Wiseman, alleging medical malpractice and gross negligence. As Idaho law requires, the Wisemans initiated a prelitigation screening process before filing their lawsuit.
Dr. Rencher filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Wisemans had failed to comply with the mandatory prelitigation screening requirements. Crucially, Rencher supported his motion with a copy of the prelitigation screening panel’s advisory decision – a document that, by statute, is not subject to judicial review.
After reviewing portions of the advisory decision, the district court granted Rencher’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Wisemans had indeed failed to meet the prelitigation screening requirements. The Wisemans appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing the district court erred by considering the advisory decision.
PRELITIGATION SCREENING STATUTES PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR ANY PURPOSE
The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision, emphasizing that Idaho Code § 6-1005 unambiguously prohibits judicial review of the prelitigation screening panel’s advisory decisions. The Court stated:
“There shall be no judicial or other review or appeal of such matters. No party shall be obliged to comply with or otherwise [be] affected or prejudiced by the proposals, conclusions or suggestions of the panel or any member or segment thereof[.]”
The Supreme Court held that the district court did err in considering the advisory decision for any purpose, including determining whether the Wisemans had complied with the prelitigation screening requirement.
INSIGHTS FOR GF CLIENTS
This ruling underscores the confidential and non-binding nature of Idaho’s prelitigation screening process for medical malpractice cases. It reinforces the legislative intent to keep these proceedings separate from subsequent litigation, ensuring that parties can engage in the screening process without fear that it will prejudice potential future court proceedings. The case has been remanded back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. Notably, the Court declined to disqualify the district judge on remand, finding that the judge’s error in considering the advisory decision did not demonstrate bias or prejudice.
This decision is a crucial reminder for parties engaged in medical malpractice cases in Idaho to adhere to the statutory limitations surrounding prelitigation screening proceedings strictly. Further, this case raises substantial questions about arguments regarding the timing of pre-litigation screening proceedings. The statutes make clear that the pre-litigation screening process is a condition precedent to litigation, and that the statute of limitations is modified based on the pre-litigation screening process. Idaho Code §§ 6-1001, 6-1005 and 6-1006. It is unclear how a party will be able to move for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds where knowledge of the dates of filing and the date of ruling by the panel are essential for calculating the statute of limitations. Perhaps this will require declarations from the panel members or the ISBM as to when specific dates occurred, or submitting the documents in fully redacted form except for the date. Regardless, this ruling makes it clear that the documents filed with and received from the ISBM cannot be reviewed by the district court.
Please contact a Gjording Fouser lawyer at 208.336.9777 if you would like any additional information about this topic or any other issues facing your company.