The Estate of Erika L. Herren Anderson, by and Through Its Duly Appointed Administrator, Todd Herren and Todd Herren, Individually and as Next Best Friend and Natural Father of Ryan Herren, a Minor, and Brynn Herren, a Minor v. Iowa Dermatology Clinic, PLC, a Corporation Charles W. Love, an Individual and Pathology Laboratory, P.C., a Corporation N/K/A Iowa Pathology Associates, P.C., 819 N.W.2d 408

Erika Herren Anderson was treated by Dr. Love for skin lesions beginning September 1996, with multiple biopsies and pathologist evaluations during 1996–1999 showing melanoma evidence only after later review.
A February 28, 1998 slide was reviewed by Dr. Love himself, not a board-certified pathologist, and the slide was later destroyed.
Erika later developed melanoma diagnosed in August 2008; subsequent pathology reviews of earlier samples showed melanoma in several slides.
Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice wrongful death suit on August 11, 2010 seeking relief for conduct occurring over six years before filing.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the statute of repose (Iowa Code § 614.1(9)) barred claims arising from acts more than six years prior; plaintiffs argued fraudulent concealment or continuum-of-negligent-treatment tolled the repose.
District court granted summary judgment, rejecting both fraudulent concealment and continuum theories; court warned about harsh effect of repose.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fraudulent concealment tolls the statute of repose.	Herren contends concealment prevented timely action.	Love/clinic did not conceal material facts; no evidence of non-disclosure.	Fraudulent concealment not proven; no concealment established.
Whether informed-consent disclosure analysis applies to concealment.	Failure to disclose slide-evaluation differences is material concealment.	Informational disclosure not shown to be material risk; no expert proof.	Informed-consent standard not satisfied; no concealment.
Whether continuum-of-negligent-treatment tolls the repose.	Continuous treatment created one continuing wrong extending into repose.	No proven negligent treatment after 1999 within repose; no continuing wrong.	No continuing negligent-treatment shown to toll repose.
Whether there was a continuous and unbroken course of negligent treatment before 1999.	Evidence shows ongoing care and evaluation before 1999.	Standard of care after 1999 not shown to be breached; disputed pre-1999 conduct.	Fact question on continuous treatment pre-1999; but no breach proven after 1999.
Whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the continuum issue.	District court erred in concluding no genuine issue of material fact.	Record lacks expert basis to prove post-1999 negligence.	Court upheld summary judgment on continuum issue.

Boomer v. French, 40 Iowa 601 (1875) (fraudulent concealment origins; estoppel against limitations defense)
Koppes v. Pearson, 384 N.W.2d 381 (Iowa 1986) (fraudulent concealment despite repose; fiduciary exception)
Christy v. Miulli, 692 N.W.2d 694 (Iowa 2005) (elements of fraudulent concealment; clear and convincing standard)
Langner v. Simpson, 533 N.W.2d 511 (Iowa 1995) (continuum-of-negligent-treatment doctrine; unbroken course of care)
Albrecht v. Gen. Motors Corp., 648 N.W.2d 87 (Iowa 2002) (statute of repose begins at act; harsh consequences acknowledged)