Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided March 21, 2002No. 26028Published

1DissentJustice Kidwell

Anna Dulaney should have been allowed her day in the Idaho court system. A reasonable interpretation of the applicable statutes would allow the case to go forward. The district court and now the majority opinion of this Court have utilized an overly strict and parochial methodology to deter and bar a serious possible malpractice situation from being litigated. Therefore, I dissent.

The district court erred when it ruled that Drs. Mengert and Stump had not adequately familiarized themselves with the local stan*170dard of care pursuant to I.C. §§ 6-1012, - 1013. The requirements of those statutes…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Fitzmaurice v. FlynnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
  2. Gubler v. BoeIdaho Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Clarke v. PrengerIdaho Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Frank v. East Shoshone HospitalIdaho Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Grover v. SmithIdaho Supreme Court · 2002

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API