McQuillen v. City of Sioux City, No. 65602

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtConsidered by REYNOLDSON; McCORMICK
Citation306 N.W.2d 789
PartiesMervin E. McQUILLEN, Appellant, v. CITY OF SIOUX CITY, Iowa, a Municipal Corporation, Paul Flynn, and Gerald P.Donovan, Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 65602
Decision Date17 June 1981

Page 789

306 N.W.2d 789
Mervin E. McQUILLEN, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SIOUX CITY, Iowa, a Municipal Corporation, Paul Flynn, and Gerald P.Donovan, Appellees.
No. 65602.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
June 17, 1981.

Harry H. Smith and MacDonald Smith, Sioux City, for appellant.

Michael S. Walsh, City Atty., and Patrick J. Nugent, Asst. City Atty., for appellees.

Considered by REYNOLDSON, C. J., and LeGRAND, McCORMICK, ALLBEE, and SCHULTZ, JJ.

McCORMICK, Justice.

The question here is whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's petition because of his refusal to undergo a medical examination ordered by the court pursuant to Iowa R.Civ.P. 132. We find no abuse of discretion and therefore affirm the judgment.

Page 790

Plaintiff Mervin E. McQuillen is a Sioux City policeman. He was off work and received medical care at the expense of defendant Sioux City because of frequent chest pains which he and his personal physician attributed to variant angina. At the request of the City, plaintiff was examined by physicians at University Hospital in Iowa City.

The Iowa City doctors ruled out coronary artery atherosclerotic disease but acknowledged the possibility of variant angina. Two tests for variant angina are recognized. One is a thallium treadmill test and the other is a coronary arteriography. The Iowa City doctors administered the thallium treadmill test, and the results were negative. They recommended the coronary arteriography, but plaintiff refused to take the test. He asserted he did not wish to subject himself to the associated risks.

As a result of the Iowa City examination, the City refused to pay further medical expenses for plaintiff and ordered him to return to work. Plaintiff then brought the present action. In one division of his petition he sought a declaratory judgment establishing the City's liability for his continuing medical expenses pursuant to section 411.15, The Code. In a second division, he alleged the City's actions in refusing to pay his medical expenses and in ordering him back to work were arbitrary and capricious. He asked for actual and exemplary damages.

In addition to denying the merits of plaintiff's petition, the City urged several defenses and a counterclaim. In the counterclaim, the City alleged the circumstances of plaintiff's refusal to submit to the coronary arteriography. Among other kinds of relief it asked that plaintiff be required to submit to the examination so that its results could be considered in determining the merits of his petition.

Subsequently the City filed a motion to require plaintiff to submit to the examination under the authority of rule 132. Plaintiff resisted, and the motion was heard and submitted. The trial court sustained the motion. In its ruling the court found that the examination involved minimal risk. It ordered plaintiff to enter University Hospital for the examination no later than 2:00 p. m., July 20, 1980, and to undergo the examination two days later.

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration which the court heard and denied. When plaintiff refused to take the examination, the City filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition or for other sanctions under rule 134(b) (2). On July 30, 1980, the trial court sustained the motion for sanctions and entered judgment dismissing plaintiff's petition. This appeal followed.

In seeking reversal, plaintiff contends the court abused its discretion by ordering the examination and dismissing his petition when he refused to take it.

I. The order for the examination. An order for medical examination under rule 132 is discretionary with the trial court. It will not be overturned unless an abuse of discretion is shown. In re...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Jack v. P & A Farms, Ltd., No. 11–0877.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 2 Noviembre 2012
    ...608 (1967) ( “[T]rials upon the merits are favored and defaults avoided if fairly possible.”); see also McQuillen v. City of Sioux City, 306 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Iowa 1981) (“[T]he drastic action of dismissal should not be ordered in the absence of willfulness, bad faith or fault.”). B. Crooked......
  • Sarka By and Through Sarka v. Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, PRESBYTERIAN-ST
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 30 Noviembre 1990
    ...(1983), 94 A.D.2d 18, 462 N.Y.S.2d 903; DuPrey v. Wagner (1982), 186 N.J.Super. 81, 451 A.2d 416; McQuillen v. City of Sioux City (1981), 306 N.W.2d 789. In Lefkowitz, the trial court ordered the plaintiff to undergo a hysterosalpingogram, a fertility test involving X-ray examinations of th......
  • Suckow v. Boone State Bank & Trust Co., No. 65960
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 20 Enero 1982
    ...willfulness, fault or bad faith. Fox v. Studebaker-Worthington, Inc., 516 F.2d 989, 993 (8th Cir. 1975); McQuillen v. City of Sioux City, 306 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Iowa 1981); Smiley, 236 N.W.2d at Trial court found plaintiffs' absence from the May 28 deposition was willful. We find no reason to......
  • Krugman v. Palmer College of Chiropractic, No. 86-896
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 13 Abril 1988
    ...non-compliance must be due to willfulness, fault or bad faith." Suckow, 314 N.W.2d at 425, citing McQuillen v. City of Sioux City, 306 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Iowa 1981) (plaintiff's willful non-compliance with court order to submit to a medical examination justified sanction of We have divid......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Jack v. P & A Farms, Ltd., No. 11–0877.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 2 Noviembre 2012
    ...608 (1967) ( “[T]rials upon the merits are favored and defaults avoided if fairly possible.”); see also McQuillen v. City of Sioux City, 306 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Iowa 1981) (“[T]he drastic action of dismissal should not be ordered in the absence of willfulness, bad faith or fault.”). B. Crooked......
  • Sarka By and Through Sarka v. Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, PRESBYTERIAN-ST
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 30 Noviembre 1990
    ...(1983), 94 A.D.2d 18, 462 N.Y.S.2d 903; DuPrey v. Wagner (1982), 186 N.J.Super. 81, 451 A.2d 416; McQuillen v. City of Sioux City (1981), 306 N.W.2d 789. In Lefkowitz, the trial court ordered the plaintiff to undergo a hysterosalpingogram, a fertility test involving X-ray examinations of th......
  • Suckow v. Boone State Bank & Trust Co., No. 65960
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 20 Enero 1982
    ...willfulness, fault or bad faith. Fox v. Studebaker-Worthington, Inc., 516 F.2d 989, 993 (8th Cir. 1975); McQuillen v. City of Sioux City, 306 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Iowa 1981); Smiley, 236 N.W.2d at Trial court found plaintiffs' absence from the May 28 deposition was willful. We find no reason to......
  • Krugman v. Palmer College of Chiropractic, No. 86-896
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 13 Abril 1988
    ...non-compliance must be due to willfulness, fault or bad faith." Suckow, 314 N.W.2d at 425, citing McQuillen v. City of Sioux City, 306 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Iowa 1981) (plaintiff's willful non-compliance with court order to submit to a medical examination justified sanction of We have divid......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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