973 N.W.2d 533
Iowa2022Background
- Jacqueline Struck was admitted to Mercy Medical Center for prolonged dizziness; hospital physicians adjusted her medications but did not impose restraints or increased supervision.
- While medicated, Struck stood up, fell, and suffered a chin laceration; she sued the hospital and several clinicians alleging professional negligence, including administration of medications contraindicated with her existing meds and failure to supervise.
- Struck did not file a certificate of merit under Iowa Code § 147.140 within the statutory period; defendants moved to dismiss under § 147.140(6) and the district court granted dismissal with prejudice.
- On appeal Struck conceded the professional-negligence claims were properly dismissed but for the first time argued her petition also pleaded ordinary negligence/premises-liability or nonprofessional claims not requiring a certificate of merit.
- The court of appeals reversed in part, finding some ordinary negligence claims against the hospital could survive; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review and vacated the court of appeals decision, affirming dismissal of the entire petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of §147.140 to Struck’s claims | Struck argued only professionally negligent claims were subject to dismissal but the petition also encompassed ordinary negligence claims that need no certificate | Mercy argued Struck pleaded only negligence in patient care/professional negligence, so §147.140 applies and certificate was required | §147.140 applies; claims alleging negligence in the practice of the profession or patient care required a certificate and were dismissed |
| Preservation of argument that petition pleaded ordinary negligence | Struck raised ordinary negligence/premises-liability theory for the first time on appeal | Mercy argued that issue was waived because not raised below | Struck waived the argument by not raising it in district court; Court of Appeals erred by reaching the unpreserved issue (Supreme Court exercised discretion to clarify statute) |
| Negligent hiring/retention claim against hospital | Struck alleged negligent hiring/retention of professional staff by Mercy; argued at least some aspects might be nonprofessional | Mercy argued negligent hiring/retention depends on proving underlying professional negligence and thus falls within §147.140 | Negligent hiring/retention claims tied to underlying professional malpractice require a certificate; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether relabeling on appeal permits discovery/remand | Struck asked remand to flesh out ordinary negligence theories and continue discovery | Mercy argued §147.140 mandates early dismissal with prejudice where certificate absent and plaintiffs cannot relabel on appeal to evade statute | Court of Appeals erred to allow remand; plaintiffs cannot relabel professional negligence as ordinary negligence on appeal to avoid §147.140; dismissal with prejudice upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Oswald v. LeGrand, 453 N.W.2d 634 (expert testimony ordinarily required to prove standard of care in medical malpractice)
- Susie v. Family Health Care of Siouxland, P.L.C., 942 N.W.2d 333 (expert testimony required where causation is not within common knowledge)
- Kastler v. Iowa Methodist Hosp., 193 N.W.2d 98 (routine nonmedical hospital acts may not require expert testimony)
- Thompson v. Embassy Rehab. & Care Ctr., 604 N.W.2d 643 (test for when expert testimony is unnecessary because facts and inferences are within common understanding)
- Benskin, Inc. v. W. Bank, 952 N.W.2d 292 (standard of review on motion to dismiss; plaintiffs can plead themselves out of court)
- Kiesau v. Bantz, 686 N.W.2d 164 (negligent hiring/retention requires proof of the employee’s underlying tort — a case within a case)
- Donovan v. State, 445 N.W.2d 763 (certain plainly negligent medical acts may be proven without expert testimony)