Rhonda Hall, Individually and as the Injured Parent of Malika and Miranda, and Bob Hall, Husband of Rhonda Hall v. Jennie Edmundson Memorial Hospital and Nebraska Methodist Health System, Inc.
2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 35
| Iowa | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs sued a surgeon for negligent performance of a Whipple procedure and sued the hospital (JEMH) and NMHS for negligent credentialing. The district court held NMHS had control over credentialing at JEMH and applied a lay standard of care, finding no breach. The Halls argued the court applied a professional standard and erred in evaluating the credentialing decision. Dr. Bendorf performed the surgery; the SMV was severed and Hall suffered long-term injuries. The case proceeded to a bench trial; the district court’s findings supported judgment for JEMH and NMHS, which the plaintiffs appealed and NMHS cross-appealed. The appellate court affirmed, adopting the lay standard of care and finding substantial evidence supported no breach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of care for negligent credentialing | Halls contend the district court applied a professional standard. | JEMH/NMHS argue a lay standard is appropriate when nonmedical decisions are made by lay board. | District court applied lay standard; affirmed. |
| Actionability of negligent credentialing | Halls assumed negligent credentialing is actionable and sought damages on that theory. | Defendants did not contest actionability; court should decide if error occurred. | We assume the tort is actionable but no reversible error found. |
| Evidentiary rulings on remedial measures and privilege files | Exclusion of evidence of post-incident credentialing changes and access to privileging files prejudiced Halls. | Evidence was inadmissible or not preserved; district court did not err. | Rulings not reversible; remediary-measures evidence excluded; privilege-file access issue not preserved. |
| Cross-appeal on NMHS’s duty | NMHS controlled credentialing and owed a duty to exercise reasonable care. | Court should determine whether NMHS owed a duty; if no breach, issue is harmless. | Harmless error; affirmed no breach; no need to decide fault regarding duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kastler v. Iowa Methodist Hospital, 193 N.W.2d 98 (Iowa 1971) (lay standard applicable to hospital decisions by nonprofessionals)
- University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Pounders, 970 So.2d 141 (Miss. 2007) (lay standard for hospital employee conduct not involving professional wrongdoing)
- LaSell v. Tri-States Theatre Corp., 11 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 1943) (custom cannot replace ordinary care; evidence of custom is not conclusive)
- Day v. Finley Hospital, 769 N.W.2d 898 (Iowa Ct.App. 2009) (peer-review privilege scope in credentialing context)
- Cawthorn v. Catholic Health Initiatives Iowa Corp., 806 N.W.2d 282 (Iowa 2011) (peer-review privilege not waived by hospital's use in trial; work-product concerns)
- Grefe & Sidney v. Watters, 525 N.W.2d 821 (Iowa 1994) (harms analysis and duty considerations in negligence)
- Hendricks v. Great Plains Supply Co., 609 N.W.2d 486 (Iowa 2000) (standard of review and substantial evidence considerations)
- Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) (Restatement (Third) of Torts influence on reasonable care standard)