V.P., a Minor, by Dhiren Patel and Shital Patel, His Parents and Next Friends v. Dr. Gregg Calderwood and Great River Women's Health Corporation, 16-1148

Background

V.P., born March 2010 after prolonged second-stage labor, suffered severe hypoxia, acidosis, and permanent brain injury; parents sued obstetrician Dr. Gregg Calderwood and Great River Women’s Health for failing to diagnose fetal oxygen deprivation and perform a timely cesarean.
Trial lasted 13 days; disputed evidence focused on fetal heart rate tracings produced by a Phillips 500X fetal heart monitor and whether tracings reflected fetal vs. maternal heart rate.
Plaintiff sought to admit rebuttal testimony from Dr. Barry Schifrin asserting (among other things) maternal/fetal heart-rate confusion on the tracings, limits of the monitor, the need for a separate maternal monitor (pulse oximeter) or fetal scalp electrode, and to introduce Exhibit 145 (monitor manual) for standard-of-care support.
District court excluded substantial portions of Dr. Schifrin’s proffered rebuttal as cumulative of prior expert testimony, as raising new issues (technical development and echocardiogram use), and as an attempt to introduce Exhibit 145 which had been ruled hearsay.
Jury returned a defense verdict finding no negligence. Plaintiff moved for a new trial based on Calderwood’s trial remark that the trial was “pretty much torture” and that he would have told his insurer “just pay,” but the district court denied the motion.
On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the rebuttal evidence and that plaintiff failed to preserve error on the new-trial claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of rebuttal evidence	Schifrin’s testimony was proper rebuttal to defendants’ evidence about tracings and monitoring; it addressed maternal/fetal confusion and unreliability of the strip near birth	Much of Schifrin was cumulative, introduced new technical issues, and sought to introduce Exhibit 145 previously excluded as hearsay	Affirmed: exclusion was within district court’s broad discretion (cumulative, new issues, hearsay)
Admissibility of Exhibit 145 (monitor manual)	Manual evidenced standard of care and proper machine use; could be used on rebuttal	Exhibit 145 is hearsay and was previously excluded	Affirmed: Exhibit 145 inadmissible as hearsay
Whether rebuttal may introduce expert testimony about machine development/echocardiogram	Plaintiff: defendants’ experts addressed machine capabilities; so rebuttal on technical development and echocardiogram was responsive	Defendants: such topics were not raised and constituted new issues beyond rebuttal scope	Affirmed: testimony on development and echocardiogram raised new issues and was not proper rebuttal
New trial based on Calderwood’s “torture”/insurance remark	Plaintiff: remark unfairly elicited sympathy and improperly suggested defendant would have settled if culpable; warrants new trial	Defendant: no contemporaneous objection at trial; motion for new trial insufficient to preserve error	Affirmed: error not preserved—motion in limine rulings were preliminary and plaintiff failed to timely object

Key Cases Cited

Carolan v. Hill, 553 N.W.2d 882 (Iowa 1996) (defines proper scope of rebuttal evidence and exclusion of cumulative testimony)
State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa 2017) (standard for reviewing hearsay rulings)
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Schulte, 843 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 2014) (appellate review requires issues be raised and decided in district court to preserve for appeal)
State v. Miller, 229 N.W.2d 762 (Iowa 1975) (limine rulings may operate as final rulings in narrow circumstances; otherwise contemporaneous objections required)