# IHC Hospitals, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners

> Idaho Supreme Court · February 4, 1985 · 108 Idaho 136

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533710

## Case

- **Full name:** IHC HOSPITALS, INC., a Nonprofit Utah Corporation, Doing Business as Primary Children’s Medical Center, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendant-Respondent; INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE, INC., a Nonprofit Utah Corporation, Doing Business as Primary Children’s Medical Center, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF TWIN FALLS COUNTY, Idaho, Defendant-Respondent
- **Court:** Idaho Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 4, 1985
- **Citations:** 108 Idaho 136; 697 P.2d 1150; 1985 Ida. LEXIS 414
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bakes
- **Judges:** Shepard, Bakes, Donaldson, Bistline, Huntley
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Intermountain Health Care, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 108 Idaho 757 (1985).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533710

## Opinion text

BAKES, Justice,
concurring specially:
I concur in most of the majority opinion and write only to point out that, while I agree that a credit manager would probably not be competent to testify regarding the reasonableness of charges and the necessity for medical procedures employed, I believe that a qualified hospital administrator or assistant would be sufficiently qualified as an expert in order to testify in these cases if the administrator had reviewed the patient’s medical records as well as the *147 hospital’s records of charges incurred. Such a witness would be the most qualified person to testify regarding the reasonableness of the charges for the particular procedures or services rendered, and would be sufficiently qualified to testify concerning the reasonableness of the medical treatment after reviewing the medical records. As the majority opinion points out, an expert need only be someone possessing skill or knowledge beyond the competency of the “average layman.” There is no need that the witness be the most competent person to testify on those particular items, only that the witness possess skill or knowledge beyond the competency of the average layman. And if the majority is correct in its statement that “we attribute to the county commissioners no more expertise than this Court can claim in the field of hospital administration, and specifically in the setting of particular rates for particular medical services,” then it shouldn’t be too difficult to qualify a hospital administrator as an expert in order to testify in these matters.
I concur in the majority’s reference to other administrative agencies’ practice of allowing affidavits and depositions, and note only that defendants who unreasonably object to the use of such means of proving expert evidentiary matters and who unnecessarily insist upon experts personally appearing at those hearings might well be subjected to costs under I.C. § 67-5215(g) and I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1), and attorney fees under I.C. § 12-117.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533710. Public record. Not legal advice.