Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.

• Decision Date: 30 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. C 11–4047–MWB.,C 11–4047–MWB.
• Citation: 23 F.Supp.3d 991
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
• Parties: Edward P. HAGEN, D.O., Plaintiff, v. SIOUXLAND OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, P.C., an Iowa Corporation, Paul J. Eastman, M.D., Tauhni T. Hunt, M.D., and Angela J. Aldrich, M.D., Defendants.

23 F.Supp.3d 991

Edward P. HAGEN, D.O., Plaintiff,
v.
SIOUXLAND OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, P.C., an Iowa Corporation, Paul J. Eastman, M.D., Tauhni T. Hunt, M.D., and Angela J. Aldrich, M.D., Defendants.

No. C 11–4047–MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

Signed May 30, 2014

Ordered accordingly.

[23 F.Supp.3d 994]

Stanley E. Munger, Jay Elliott Denne, Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.

Barry G. Vermeer, Gislason & Hunter, LLP, Des Moines, IA, Dustan J. Cross, Mark S. Ullery, Gislason & Hunter LLP, New Ulm, MN, Joseph L. Fitzgibbons, Fitzgibbons Law Office, Estherville, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PARTIES' POST–TRIAL MOTIONS
MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.
INTRODUCTION
995

A.
Factual Background
996

1.	The parties and their relation to each other	996
2.	The facts surrounding Hagen's firing	996

B.
Procedural Background
998

II.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
1000

A.
Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
1000

1.	Standard for granting judgment as a matter of law	1000
2.	The challenged public policy exceptions	1000

a.	Whether Iowa law recognizes Protected Conduct 3, 4, or 5 as protected activity that can support a claim for; wrongful discharge in violation of Iowa public policy	1001
b.	Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings that Hagen was fired for engaging in Protected Conduct 3 or 5	1001

i.	Sufficiency of evidence for Protected Conduct 3	1001
ii.	Sufficiency of evidence for Protected Conduct 5	1002

3.
Hagen's status as an at-will vs. contractual employee
1004

B.
Defendants' Motion for a New Trial
1004

1.	Standard for granting a new trial	1005
2.	The challenged jury instructions	1006

a.	An overriding business justification	1006
b.	Calculating past lost earnings based on when Hagen would have “voluntarily” left Siouxland	1009

3.	Whether the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence	1011
4.	Defendants' evidentiary objections	1011

C.
Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Motion for Judgment, and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
1012

1.
Plaintiff's request for an additur
1013

a.	Is Hagen's additur request procedurally barred?	1013
b.	Would Hagen's proposed additur be unconstitutional?	1014

2.
Plaintiff's request for pre- and post-judgment interest
1015

III.
CONCLUSION
1016

[23 F.Supp.3d 995]

In this memorandum opinion, I must resolve a number of post-trial motions from both Plaintiff and Defendants following a jury trial in which a jury found Defendants liable for wrongfully discharging Plaintiff in violation of Iowa public policy. On May 22, 2013, Defendants filed a post-trial motion requesting judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively a new trial (docket no. 119). On May 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed a post-trial motion requesting that I award Plaintiff additional damages as well as pre- and post-judgment interest on the damages the jury awarded (docket no. 121). On July 5, 2013, both Plaintiff and Defendants filed supplemental briefs, at my request, covering a number of issues discussed below (docket nos. 134 and 137). The parties presented oral arguments on their motions on August 23, 2013.

After hearing from the parties, I decided to stay this case while I certified to the Iowa Supreme Court three questions related to the parties' post-trial motions. On May 9, 2014, the Iowa Supreme Court declined to answer any of the certified questions. Now that the Iowa Supreme Court has returned the certified questions to me, I lift the stay and I address the parties' motions. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial are denied. Plaintiff's motion for an additur is denied and Plaintiff's motion for pre- and post-judgment interest is granted.

I. INTRODUCTION

Unless I note otherwise, the following facts are presented “in the light most favorable to the jury verdict, assuming all

[23 F.Supp.3d 996]

conflicts in the evidence were resolved in [the Plaintiff's] favor, and giving Plaintiff[ ] the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence....” Craig Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. Viacom Outdoor, Inc., 528 F.3d 1001, 1013 (8th Cir.2008).

A. Factual Background

In this case, Dr. Edward Hagen (Hagen) sued his former employer, Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C. (Siouxland), and his former partners, Dr. Paul Eastman (Eastman), Dr. Tauhni Hunt (Hunt), and Dr. Angela Aldrich (Aldrich) (collectively “the Siouxland Defendants”) for wrongful discharge in violation of Iowa public policy. In particular, Hagen claims that the Siouxland Defendants ousted him from their medical practice because Hagen reported, or threatened to report, to St. Luke's hospital and a patient, that Eastman and two nurses committed medical malpractice causing an unborn baby's death. Hagen also claims that the Siouxland Defendants ousted him for consulting with attorneys about whether Eastman and the nurses had committed malpractice and whether Hagen should report Eastman to the Iowa Board of Medicine or St. Luke's.

1. The parties and their relation to each other

Siouxland, an Iowa professional corporation, is located in Sioux City, Iowa, and provides obstetric and gynecologic services to patients. Siouxland expanded into the area of cosmetic surgery and related services, including the development of The Rejuvenation Centre, which provided client services such as Botox treatment, Juviderm treatment, hair removal, liposuction, massage therapy, and weight loss consultation. Siouxland was formed and organized by three physicians, including Hagen's father, in 1975. At the time of Hagen's firing, in November 2009, the doctors with an interest in Siouxland were Hagen, Eastman, Hunt, and Aldrich.

Hagen is a doctor of obstetrics and gynecology, presently licensed to practice medicine in Iowa, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. On January 1, 1993, Hagen entered into an employment agreement with Siouxland. Hagen has been an equity owner, president, and director at Siouxland. At the time he was fired, Hagen was the president of Siouxland.

When the doctors joined Siouxland, they agreed not to “engage in the practice of medicine except as an employee of the CORPORATION unless otherwise authorized by the Board of Directors.” The employment agreement states all income generated “for services as a doctor and all activities relating thereto, such as lecturing, writing articles and consulting work, shall belong to the CORPORATION....” A doctor could be terminated by delivering a written notice of cancellation at least 90 days prior to the effective date of cancellation or “discharged by the CORPORATION in the event of embezzlement or other theft; willful contravention of professional ethics; substantial and willful violation of any other terms or conditions of this employment agreement, all subject to determination by the Board of Directors of the CORPORATION.”

2. The facts surrounding Hagen's firing

Hagen's claims in this case arise out of an incident that began at St. Luke's hospital in Sioux City, Iowa, on Thursday, November 5, 2009. On that day, Selvin and Maria Maeda, who were husband and wife, were at St. Luke's because Maria Maeda was dealing with complications related to her pregnancy. She was 34 weeks pregnant and suffering from infections related to a prior liver transplant. Eastman was

[23 F.Supp.3d 997]

Maria's consulting physician and had met her during a prior examination, but he was not at the hospital with Maria on the 5th. In fact, Maria had been admitted to the hospital at around 1:00 pm and Eastman had never gone to St. Luke's to check on her. Hagen was on call that evening to cover patients at St. Luke's. At around 4:30 pm, Eastman called Hagen to ask whether Hagen was on call and to explain Maria's complications. Eastman explained to Hagen that he thought Maria was at a hospital in Omaha, and had only recently learned that she was still at St. Luke's. Eastman told Hagen that Maria was in labor and going into intensive care based on her complications.

After speaking with Eastman for about 30 minutes, Hagen went to St. Luke's. Hagen arrived at the hospital at 5:30 pm. He immediately went to see Maria, who was under general anesthesia, and performed an ultrasound, which confirmed that her baby was dead. Hagen began asking two labor and delivery nurses—Peggy Mace and Holley Duerksen—how long the baby had been dead. They could not tell him. Hagen became very upset and asked the nurses: “How the fuck can this happen at St. Luke's that [nurses] watch a baby die on the monitor, suffocate, and do nothing?” Hagen went on to say to the nurses: “You killed this baby. You watched this baby die on the monitor. I mean, you guys did nothing.” Hagen noted that the nurses had missed the fact that Maria's baby was dead because they had mistaken Maria's elevated heart rate for her baby's and presumed the baby was still alive.

After realizing that Maria's baby was dead, Hagen determined that he needed to perform a C-section to deliver the dead baby. Before doing so, Hagen called Eastman on the telephone. At trial, Hagen testified that the conversation went as follows: “And I told [Eastman] we got a problem here. We've got a mother here that's had no care. The nurses screwed up. You didn't come see her, and this baby is dead, and now I've gotta do a C-section on a mother and deliver a dead baby.” Eastman offered to help do the C-section, but Hagen declined, telling Eastman: “I don't need help doing a C-section. I can do that. I needed your help three hours earlier, but I don't need it now.”

Before performing the C-section, Hagen spoke with Selvin, Maria's husband. They talked for over an hour in the doctor's lounge. During their conversation, Hagen told Selvin that “things could have been done...