KIRK HARTMAN, Individually, and as Surviving Spouse of Sheri Hartman; KIRK HARTMAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sheri Hartman; ASHLEY HARTMAN ROBERTS; JORDAN HARTMAN; And JOSH HARTMAN, Adult Children of Sheri Hartman v. POCATELLO HOSPITAL, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company Dba PORTNEUF MEDICAL CENTER, LLC; DR. AMBER SCHROEDER, P.A.; DR. WILLIS PARMLEY, ROCKY MOUNTAIN PHYSICIAN GROUP, LLC; DR. STEPHEN HANSEN, IDAHO SPORTS AND SPINE, LLC

── KIRK HARTMAN, Individually, and as Surviving Spouse of Sheri Hartman; KIRK HARTMAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sheri Hartman; ASHLEY HARTMAN ROBERTS; JORDAN HARTMAN; And JOSH HARTMAN, Adult Children of Sheri Hartman v. POCATELLO HOSPITAL, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company Dba PORTNEUF MEDICAL CENTER, LLC; DR. AMBER SCHROEDER, P.A.; DR. WILLIS PARMLEY, ROCKY MOUNTAIN PHYSICIAN GROUP, LLC; DR. STEPHEN HANSEN, IDAHO SPORTS AND SPINE, LLC ── Court: Idaho Supreme Court Date: June 01, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52101 KIRK HARTMAN, individually, and as ) surviving spouse of Sheri Hartman; KIRK ) HARTMAN, as Personal Representative of the ) Estate of Sheri Hartman; ASHLEY ) HARTMAN ROBERTS, adult daughter of ) Sheri Hartman, deceased; JORDAN ) HARTMAN, adult son of Sheri Hartman, ) deceased; JOSH HARTMAN, adult son of ) Sheri Hartman, deceased, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) Boise, February 2026 Term ) v. ) Opinion Filed: June 1, 2026 ) POCATELLO HOSPITAL, LLC, a Delaware ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk limited liability company dba PORTNEUF ) MEDICAL CENTER, LLC; DR. AMBER ) SCHROEDER, P.A.; DR. WILLIS ) PARMLEY, ROCKY MOUNTAIN ) PHYSICIAN GROUP, LLC; DR. STEPHEN ) HANSEN, IDAHO SPORTS AND SPINE, ) LLC, ) ) Defendant-Respondents. ) _______________________________________ ) Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Bannock County. Rick Carnaroli, District Judge. The district court’s amended judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part; the district court’s summary judgment order is reversed in part and affirmed in part; the district court’s substitute decision and order is affirmed; and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Barton Atkinson & Murdoch, P.C., Rexburg, and DeFriez Law, Caldwell, for Appellants. Marcia Murdoch, argued. Tolman Brizee & Cannon, PC, Twin Falls, attorney for Portneuf Medical Center, LLC. Nicole L. Cannon, argued. Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, LLP, Pocatello, attorney for Respondents Stephen Hansen, M.D., and Idaho Sports and Spine, LLC. Mindy M. Muller, argued. 1  Quane McColl Metz, PLLC, Boise, attorney for Respondents Dr. Willis Parmley, Amber Schroeder, P.A., and Rocky Mountain Physician Group, LLC. Vala L. Metz, argued. ____________________ BRODY, Justice In this medical malpractice action, the Hartman family appeals the district court’s imposition of discovery sanctions and its entry of summary judgment in favor of the medical providers who prescribed or administered transdermal fentanyl patches to Sheri Hartman, ultimately leading to her death. This appeal presents two questions. First, whether a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must disclose the identities of non-testifying local standard‑of‑care experts when the plaintiff’s testifying experts rely “primarily” on a defendant’s deposition testimony to establish familiarity with the local standard of care. Second, whether summary judgment is properly awarded to defendant medical providers when a plaintiff fails to rebut a defendant’s evidence that the precise pharmacokinetic mechanism of injury was not foreseeable to the providers. Consistent with our holding in Quigley v. Kemp, 162 Idaho 408, 412, 398 P.3d 141, 145 (2017), we reiterate that the identity of a non-testifying local standard-of-care expert must be disclosed as part of expert‑witness discovery. A plaintiff’s failure to make this disclosure may result in discovery sanctions, including the exclusion of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses, as occurred here. See generally I.R.C.P. 37(c)(1). We further hold that, to withstand summary judgment on the issue of proximate causation, a medical‑malpractice plaintiff must demonstrate that a reasonable medical provider in a defendant’s position would have foreseen the general risk of harm arising from the allegedly negligent treatment,