Christine Kostoglanis v. Leroy L. Yates and Diamond Medical Spa & Vein, P.C.
19-2078
| Iowa | Mar 12, 2021Background
- In June 2015 Dr. LeRoy Yates performed liposuction and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell transfer on Christine Kostoglanis at Diamond Medical Spa & Vein.
- Kostoglanis experienced wound and postoperative problems, contacted the clinic, then sought a second opinion and wound treatment beginning July 2015.
- In June 2018 Kostoglanis sued Yates and Diamond Medical for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of contract, alleging misrepresentations about Yates’s qualifications and that the services were not performed professionally.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing all claims arise out of patient care and are barred by the two-year malpractice statute of limitations in Iowa Code § 614.1(9).
- The district court granted summary judgment; Kostoglanis appealed. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding the claims arose from patient care and were subject to the two-year limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations applies to claims (misrepresentation, breach of contract)? | Kostoglanis: 5-year or 10-year periods (Iowa Code §614.1(4) or (5)) apply. | Defendants: two-year malpractice period (§614.1(9)) applies because claims arise from patient care. | Held: §614.1(9) applies; claims are governed by the two-year malpractice limitation and are untimely. |
| Can claims be recharacterized to avoid malpractice limitations (artful pleading)? | Kostoglanis: styling claims as misrepresentation and contract avoids malpractice statute. | Defendants: substance controls; cannot evade malpractice limitations by pleading labels. | Held: Substance over form; because liability depends on proving lack of qualifications/standard-of-care, malpractice limitation controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Langner v. Simpson, 533 N.W.2d 511 (Iowa 1995) (applied malpractice statute of limitations to multiple claims arising from psychiatric treatment)
- Scott v. City of Sioux City, 432 N.W.2d 144 (Iowa 1988) (statutory-period inquiry asks which statutory description most nearly characterizes the action)
- Venard v. Winter, 524 N.W.2d 163 (Iowa 1994) (focus on the actual nature of the action in choosing the limitations period)
- Sandbulte v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins., 343 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 1984) (limitations period determined by characterizing the foundation of the action)
- Doe v. Cherwitz, 894 F. Supp. 344 (S.D. Iowa 1995) (distinguished: willful torts outside patient-care context may not fall under malpractice limitation)