Dennis L. Cawthorn v. Catholic Health Initiatives Iowa Corp. D/B/A Mercy Hospital Medical Center, a Corporation
2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 95
| Iowa | 2011Background
- Cawthorn sues for negligent credentialing of Dr. Miulli; Mercy had previously produced Dr. Miulli’s credentialing file at trial.
- Initial trial admitted credentialing documents and IBME evidence; jury found negligence and punitive damages issues were unresolved.
- Appellate court remanded for new trial, holding IBME evidence confidential under Iowa Code § 272C.6(4) and denying punitive damages; Day v. Finley Hospital concerned credentialing file protections.
- On remand Mercy relied on Day to argue credentialing file contents are inadmissible under § 147.135(2); district court found Day intervening and allowed reconsideration.
- Mercy renewed motion for summary judgment; district court granted it, finding no admissible evidence from the credentialing file to support the claim, and thus no triable issue.
- Cawthorn appeals, arguing law of the case barred Mercy and waiver by prior production; Mercy argues Day changed controlling law and waivers do not apply under § 147.135(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law of the case barred admissibility challenge. | Cawthorn: law of the case foreclosed reconsideration of admissibility. | Mercy: remand permitted fresh analysis of admissibility; law of the case inapplicable. | Law of the case did not bar admissibility reconsideration. |
| Whether Day v. Finley Hospital alters controlling law on admissibility. | Cawthorn: Day would bar admissibility of credentialing materials. | Mercy: Day changes the law; credentialing files are inadmissible. | Day not applied on merits; issue not reached. |
| Whether Mercy waived the credentialing file privilege by earlier production. | Cawthorn: voluntary production constituted waiver under § 147.135(2). | Mercy: statutory privilege and separate inadmissibility remain; no waiver. | No waiver; privilege and inadmissibility remain under § 147.135(2). |
| Whether the district court had authority to grant summary judgment on remand. | Cawthorn: remand for new trial required, thus no summary judgment. | Mercy: post-remand record allowed entry of summary judgment where no admissible evidence exists. | District court properly granted summary judgment on the admissibility grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christy v. Miulli, 692 N.W.2d 694 (Iowa 2005) (peer review/credentialing context discussed; remand and limitations on adjudication)
- Day v. Finley Hospital, 769 N.W.2d 898 (Iowa Ct.App.2009) (credentialing file protections under § 147.135(2))
- Kershman v. Swehla, 17 N.W. 908 (1883) (remand requires trial anew; do not render automatic judgments)
- City of Hampton v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 554 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 1996) (remand scope; case reviewed on remand absent limiting instructions)
- United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 612 N.W.2d 101 (Iowa 2000) (district court discretion on remand procedural course)
- Carolan v. Hill, 553 N.W.2d 882 (Iowa 1996) (statutory peer review privilege; scope defined by § 147.135(2))