Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.
964 F. Supp. 2d 951
| N.D. Iowa | 2013Background
- Dr. Edward Hagen, an OB/GYN and longtime physician at Siouxland Ob/Gyn, was fired after he reported or threatened to report perceived malpractice by a partner (Dr. Eastman) and nurses following a fetal death at St. Luke’s Hospital.
- After the incident Hagen reported the events to hospital administration, told the patient’s husband and family they may have been victims of malpractice, and consulted attorneys about reporting duties to the Iowa Board of Medicine.
- A jury found Siouxland and the partner-defendants liable for wrongful discharge in violation of Iowa public policy, identifying three bases: (1) reporting nurses’ conduct to the hospital; (2) disclosing possible malpractice to the patient/family; and (3) consulting an attorney about reporting duties.
- Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing (inter alia) that those three categories of conduct are not protected under Iowa law and that Hagen, as a contractual employee, cannot bring a wrongful-discharge claim.
- Judge Bennett concluded the key legal questions are unsettled under Iowa law and certified three questions to the Iowa Supreme Court because their resolution is dispositive for post-trial relief and likely to recur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Iowa recognizes as protected conduct (a) reporting nurses to the hospital; (b) telling a patient/family they may be malpractice victims; (c) consulting an attorney about reporting duties | Hagen: Each action furthers Iowa public policy favoring medical competence, reporting, and patient disclosure; consulting counsel to comply with mandatory reporting is protected | Siouxland: These activities are not clearly mandated by statute or regulation in the form alleged and are too general to create a protected public-policy exception | Court: Iowa law is unsettled on all three; judge reasoned statutory licensing/reporting schemes and disclosure duties support protection and therefore certified the question to the Iowa Supreme Court |
| 2. Whether contractual (for-cause) employees can bring wrongful-discharge-in-violation-of-public-policy claims (versus only at-will employees) | Hagen: Wrongful-discharge tort vindicates public policy interests independent of contract status; contractual employees should have access to the tort because contract remedies may not vindicate public interests | Siouxland: A contractual employee bargained for termination terms and therefore should be limited to contractual remedies | Court: Unsettled under Iowa law; judge concluded Iowa precedent tends to permit tort claims by contractual employees but certified the question for the Iowa Supreme Court |
| 3. Whether absence of an "overriding business justification" is an independent element of the wrongful-discharge claim (or implicit in the "determining factor" causation element) | Hagen: The jury instruction treating protected activity as the determining factor sufficiently requires that protected conduct actually tip the scales; separate element unnecessary | Siouxland: Jasper and other authority list lack of overriding business justification as an explicit element; jury should be instructed accordingly | Court: Iowa law is ambiguous on whether the business-justification inquiry is separate or implicit; certified the question to clarify jury-instruction law |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. Liberty Holdings, 803 N.W.2d 106 (Iowa 2011) (describing Iowa public-policy exception to at-will employment)
- Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 751 (Iowa 2009) (framework for wrongful-discharge/public-policy inquiry and elements)
- Ballalatak v. All Iowa Agriculture Ass'n, 781 N.W.2d 272 (Iowa 2010) (discussion of scope of public-policy protection; left open right to consult one’s own attorney)
- Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., Inc., 429 N.W.2d 558 (Iowa 1988) (early Iowa recognition of wrongful-discharge tort protecting right to seek statutorily provided benefits)
- Conaway v. Webster City Prods. Co., 431 N.W.2d 795 (Iowa 1988) (wrongful-discharge tort not preempted by collective-bargaining remedy; treated as independent tort)
- Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chem., Inc., 613 N.W.2d 275 (Iowa 2000) (elements and causation discussion used in Iowa wrongful-discharge analysis)
- Lloyd v. Drake Univ., 686 N.W.2d 225 (Iowa 2004) (elemental discussion of causation and protected activity)
- Keveney v. Missouri Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. 2010) (persuasive authority extending wrongful-discharge tort to contractual employees)
- Deerman v. Beverly California Corp., 518 S.E.2d 804 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999) (licensing and practice-act language can support wrongful-discharge claim for informing patients/families)
- Shores v. Senior Manor Nursing Ctr., 518 N.E.2d 471 (Ill. App. 1987) (employee reporting patient neglect to facility administrator protected even if statutory duty directs report to state agency)
- Kirk v. Mercy Hosp. Tri-County, 851 S.W.2d 617 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (Nursing Practice Act supports wrongful-discharge claim for nurse who sought to protect patient interests)