Proceedings Over Doctors’ Split Ordered Reopened In Separate High Court Ruling, Woman Loses Appeal Of Alimony Reduction

A battle between North Idaho doctors over the termination of their clinic partnership is headed back to district court.

The Idaho Supreme Court on Tuesday vacated the trial judge’s finding that a new trial was in order, because two members of the jury said another jury member told them one of the doctors was involved in a wife-beating incident.

Dr. J. Bayard Miller sued his former partners in the operation of the Silverton Medical Clinic, Drs. Frederick Haller and Thomas Prenger. He contended that his former partners never intended to carry out an oral agreement to refer patients to Miller, in exchange for his agreement to withdraw from the clinic partnership.

The Supreme Court ruled 3-2 against a bid from Haller and Prenger to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground such an agreement was forbidden by state and federal laws and thus not enforceable.

The majority sent the case back to 1st District Judge Craig Kosonen with instructions that he conduct further proceedings to determine whether the jury statements should be admitted, and whether the prejudice to Miller was sufficient for a new trial.

A jury ruled against Miller, but Kosonen ordered a new trial after two jurors filed sworn statements that another juror, the wife of a deputy sheriff, told them Miller had been involved in an alleged wife-beating incident, to the extent that the wife was hospitalized.

The Supreme Court said there was some question whether there had been testimony during the trial about Miller’s violence toward his wife and whether the discussion between the jurors was enough to require a new trial.

Justices Cathy Silak and Gerald Schroeder dissented, saying the lawsuit should be dismissed since the oral referral agreement could cover Medicaid patients and clearly violated both state and federal laws.

In another decision released Tuesday, the court held that a provision in a divorce agreement can be self-executing and not require judicial action.

In a Kootenai County case, Barbara Toyama appealed a decision against her request to maintain her alimony payments. Her ex-husband, Roy Toyama, signed a divorce settlement giving her up to $3,500 per month in alimony but stipulating the amount would be reduced by half if Roy Toyama, an ophthalmologist, suffered disability, injury or reduced income because of age.

Court records said Toyama halved his payments in 1991, retiring at 66 due to the onset of arthritis.

Barbara Toyama disputed the action.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the divorce agreement clearly called for reduced payments if Roy Toyama was disabled or retired. If his ex-wife felt he wasn’t retired or disabled, she should have filed a court action seeking a ruling, the court said.