Clinic v. Dist. Court of Franklin Cnty., No. 45677.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtSTIGER
Citation231 Iowa 65,300 N.W. 646
PartiesHAMPTON CLINIC et al. v. DISTRICT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY et al.
Decision Date18 November 1941
Docket NumberNo. 45677.

231 Iowa 65
300 N.W. 646

HAMPTON CLINIC et al.
v.
DISTRICT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY et al.

No. 45677.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 18, 1941.


Review under certiorari, District Court, Franklin County; H. E. Fry, Judge.

Certiorari to test the legality of a rule issued by respondent for the production by petitioners of clinical and hospital records and charts pertaining to the care and treatment of their patient, J. C. Garrett, who claimed in his petition for production of the records that they were material to the just determination of his cause of action against petitioners for malpractice and necessary to enable him to amend his petition to comply with the ruling of the court sustaining the motion for more specific statement filed by petitioners, defendants in the malpractice suit.

Writ annulled.

[300 N.W. 647]

James E. Coonley, of Hampton, and Senneff & Senneff, of Mason City, for petitioners.

Sterling Alexander, of Webster City, and W. H. Soper, of Eldora, for respondents.


STIGER, Justice.

J. C. Garrett, in his petition asking damages against the Hampton Clinic, et al., petitioners in this certiorari proceeding, alleged in substance that the defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat his condition. Defendants filed a motion to make the petition more specific. The trial court sustained the motion in part and plaintiff was required to set out each act of omission or commission upon which he relied to prove negligence in the treatment of a broken arm, broken pelvic bone, broken femur of the right leg and wherein the diagnosis was improperly made.

Plaintiff then filed a verified petition under the provisions of sections 11316 and 11317 for production of the documents.

[300 N.W. 648]

It stated the facts relating to the diagnosis and treatment were contained in the charts and records of the hospital and in the clinical records of defendants pertaining to the plaintiff's case which documents were either in the possession or under the control of defendants who had refused to produce them for inspection by plaintiff on request. The petition for production further stated:

“That said hospital records, charts and pictures are material to the just determination of this cause in that they will show the diagnosis of plaintiff's condition as made by the defendants and the treatment accorded him, which facts are not now definitely within the knowledge of plaintiff, to the extent necessary to enable him to amend his petition pursuant to the ruling of the Court on Defendants' Motion for more specific statement. That the facts which the plaintiff expects to plead and prove by such records, charts and pictures are that a bone infection resulting after the introduction by the defendants of pegs into the bone of his leg was improperly treated by not promptly removing said pegs, the infection being thereby allowed to continue and increase in severity, without any effort being made to abate such infection.

That the plaintiff be permitted to inspect and copy said records and charts and that the defendants show cause for their failure or refusal to produce the same.”

Defendants resisted the petition for production of clinical and hospital records, stating that:

“The Lutheran Hospital was a separate, distinct corporation not owned or operated by the defendants; that the hospital corporation had charge of its own records and that they were not under the control of the defendants; they further objected to the production of their clinical records on the ground that it was a mere fishing of the plaintiff for evidence for the purpose of finding out whether he had a lawsuit or whether he did not and to get the defendants' personal records so as to find out what their defense would be; that the petition really was one for the purpose of undertaking to discover whether the plaintiff had a cause of action.”

The trial court found that the hospital records and charts were under the control of defendants and that the records and charts of the hospital and defendants were material and necessary to enable plaintiff to prepare his case for trial and to the just determination of his cause of action all as required by sections 11316...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Hardenbergh v. Both, No. 48778
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 15, 1955
    ...and provisions for discovery should be interpreted broadly and liberally to effect their purpose. In Hampton Clinic v. District Court, 231 Iowa 65-71, 300 N.W. 646, the proceeding was for the production of hospital records and papers, which the Court granted. On page 68 of 231 Iowa, on page......
  • Chandler v. Taylor
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 11, 1944
    ...to materially affect certain fundamental principles heretofore adhered to by us. In the recent case of Hampton Clinic v. District Court, 231 Iowa 65, 68, 300 N.W. 646, 648, we point out that “the statutes providing for the production of books and papers are remedial and should be liberally ......
  • Thompson v. Patrons Mut. Fire Ins. Ass'n, No. 45769.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 18, 1941
    ...the terms of the policy, would, without its consent thereto, render the policy void, but does not cancel or attempt to cancel the policy, [300 N.W. 646]and retains the premim paid by the insured, and treats the contract as valid, it waives any forfeiture of the policy based thereon. [Citing......
3 cases
  • Hardenbergh v. Both, No. 48778
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 15, 1955
    ...and provisions for discovery should be interpreted broadly and liberally to effect their purpose. In Hampton Clinic v. District Court, 231 Iowa 65-71, 300 N.W. 646, the proceeding was for the production of hospital records and papers, which the Court granted. On page 68 of 231 Iowa, on page......
  • Chandler v. Taylor
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 11, 1944
    ...to materially affect certain fundamental principles heretofore adhered to by us. In the recent case of Hampton Clinic v. District Court, 231 Iowa 65, 68, 300 N.W. 646, 648, we point out that “the statutes providing for the production of books and papers are remedial and should be liberally ......
  • Thompson v. Patrons Mut. Fire Ins. Ass'n, No. 45769.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 18, 1941
    ...the terms of the policy, would, without its consent thereto, render the policy void, but does not cancel or attempt to cancel the policy, [300 N.W. 646]and retains the premim paid by the insured, and treats the contract as valid, it waives any forfeiture of the policy based thereon. [Citing......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT