Fisk v. McDonald

<p>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 46639 DAVID FISK and MARGARET FISK, ) Husband and Wife, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) v. ) ) JEFFERY D. MCDONALD, M.D., an ) Boise, April 2020 Term individual; NORTH IDAHO DAY ) SURGERY, LLC., dba NORTHWEST ) Opinion Filed: October 23, 2020 SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk Defendants-Respondents, ) and ) ) JOHN L. PENNINGS, M.D., an individual, ) ) Defendant. ) Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. John T. Mitchell, District Judge. The district court’s decisions are affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings. Gary L. Shockey, PC, Jackson, Wyoming, and Smith, Woolf, Anderson &amp; Wilkinson, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for Appellants. Gary L. Shockey argued. Ramsden, Marfice, Ealy &amp; De Smet, LLP, Coeur d’Alene, for Respondent. Jeffery D. McDonald. Michael E. Ramsden argued. Garrett Richardson, PLLC, Eagle, for Respondent North Idaho Day Surgery, LLC. Nancy Jo Garrett argued. ________________________ BURDICK, Chief Justice. This is a medical malpractice case arising out of treatment received by Margaret Fisk at North Idaho Day Surgery, LLC, d/b/a Northwest Specialty Hospital (“the Hospital”). David and 1 Margaret Fisk appeal from an order of the Kootenai County district court granting summary judgment in favor of Jeffery D. McDonald, M.D., and the Hospital. The district court granted summary judgment on the Fisks’ single cause of action for medical malpractice after determining the Fisks had failed to provide expert testimony demonstrating actual knowledge of the community standard of care. The Fisks also appeal the district court’s order denying their subsequent motion for reconsideration. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND McDonald is a board-certified neurological surgeon who practiced medicine at the Hospital in March of 2015. The Hospital is a specialty acute-care hospital in Post Falls, Idaho. On March 10, 2015, McDonald performed an outpatient cervical spinal fusion surgery on Mrs. Fisk at the Hospital’s facility. The Hospital provided nursing care before, during, and after Mrs. Fisk’s surgery. Jessica Sholtz, a nurse practitioner, assisted McDonald. Mrs. Fisk’s surgery had no obvious complications. The next day, the Hospital’s nurses prepared to discharge Mrs. Fisk. However, at approximately 12:45 p.m., before she could be discharged, Mrs. Fisk began suffering abdominal pain and nausea. Shortly thereafter, the nurses administered a suppository for constipation. At about 3:00 p.m., Mrs. Fisk experienced a large emesis (vomiting), which was reported to Sholtz. At that point, Sholtz decided to postpone Mrs. Fisk’s discharge from the Hospital. Mrs. Fisk’s symptoms continued to worsen throughout the day and into the evening. From 7:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Mrs. Fisk experienced nausea with intermittent retching emesis and severe abdominal pain. The Hospital nursing staff remained in communication with Sholtz, periodically notifying her about Mrs. Fisk’s condition and receiving additional orders throughout the late evening. During the night, at 1:26 a.m., Mrs. Fisk told nursing staff that her stomach hurt and that she felt like she was dying. Around the same time, she vomited ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4799738/fisk-v-mcdonald/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on, it is strongly advised to avoid Fisk v. McDonald in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Fisk v. McDonald. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Fisk v. McDonald is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.