Lisa L. Newell v. State of Iowa
21-0273
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jan 12, 2022Background
- Newell filed an administrative tort claim (Nov. 2018) against University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC) for denial of reimbursement for a defective implanted medical device; the claim was denied (Jan. 2019).
- She sued (July 2019) UIHC and two physicians, alleging negligence in a July 2017 implant surgery and breach of an expressed promise to obtain reimbursement; she later amended to name the State as sole defendant.
- The court-ordered discovery plan required plaintiff expert disclosures 210 days before trial; the State timely designated an expert; Newell filed a late, vague reservation to designate experts without opinions.
- The State moved for summary judgment, arguing Newell failed to timely designate expert testimony for her medical-negligence claim and presented no contract showing for reimbursement.
- The district court granted summary judgment: (1) Newell failed to present required expert testimony and the surgical issues were beyond lay understanding, and (2) she did not show a contract with UIHC for reimbursement.
- Newell appealed only the negligence ruling; the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claim is a state tort not subject to medical-malpractice expert requirements | Newell: claim is state tort/contract, not medical malpractice, so expert not required | State: claim rests on physician negligence and thus requires expert proof of standard of care | Court: claim alleges physician negligence; expert testimony required; argument waived for lack of authority |
| Whether plaintiff should have been allowed more discovery before summary judgment | Newell: discovery incomplete; needed evidence (e.g., spoliation) | State: Newell failed to show what facts she needed or provide affidavits required for a continuance | Court: Newell offered no affidavits/reasons; no basis to delay summary judgment |
| Whether res ipsa or other doctrines eliminate need for expert testimony | Newell: res ipsa loquitur or negligence per se makes expert unnecessary | State: the implant surgery raises technical causation questions beyond a layperson | Court: procedure involved highly technical issues; res ipsa inapplicable; expert required |
Key Cases Cited
- Kunde v. Estate of Bowman, 920 N.W.2d 803 (Iowa 2018) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Nelson v. Lindaman, 867 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2015) (materiality of facts for summary judgment)
- Wallace v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Dirs., 754 N.W.2d 854 (Iowa 2008) (definition of material fact)
- Homan v. Branstad, 887 N.W.2d 153 (Iowa 2016) (viewing evidence in nonmovant's favor on summary judgment)
- Kennis v. Mercy Hosp. Med. Ctr., 491 N.W.2d 161 (Iowa 1992) (res ipsa and expert testimony in medical cases)
- Kubik v. Burk, 540 N.W.2d 60 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (pro se litigant standards)
- Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239 (Iowa 1974) (court will not assume party's research/advocacy)
- Good v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 756 N.W.2d 42 (Iowa Ct. App. 2008) (requirements for continuance to complete discovery)