Ward v. Unity Healthcare
| Decision Date | 15 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20-1516 |
| Parties | TRINA WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITY HEALTHCARE; a/k/a UNITYPOINT HEALTH-TRINITY MUSCATINE; PRASAD NADKARNI, M.D.; SUNEEL PARVATHAREDDY, M.D.; RAMESH KUMAR, M.D.; AND MANASI NADKARNI, M.D., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Henry W Latham II (motions to strike and exclude) and Stuart P Werling (summary judgment), Judges.
Trina Ward appeals district court orders granting motions to strike and summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
Jeff Carter and Zachary C. Priebe of Jeff Carter Law Offices P.C., Des Moines and Nicholas A. Carda of McEnroe, Gotsdiner Brewer, Steinbach & Rothman, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Erik P. Bergeland and Aaron J. Redinbaugh of Finley Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines for appellees Prasad Nadkarni, M.D., and Ramesh Kumar, M.D.
James R. Patton, J. Sue Myatt and Jeffrey D. Martens of Bozeman, Neighbour, Patton & Noe, LLP, Moline, Illinois for appellees Unity Healthcare, Suneel Parvathareddy, M.D., and Manasi Nadkarni, M.D.
Heard by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
Trina Ward appeals district court orders granting motions to strike and summary judgment in favor of defendants Unity Health Care (Trinity), also known as Unity Point Health-Trinity Muscatine, and Doctors Prasad Nadkarni, Suneel Parvathareddy, Ramesh Kumar, and Manasi Nadkarni.
Ward was admitted to Trinity Hospital in Muscatine on September 1, 2015. She first reported to the emergency room but was admitted to the hospital with abdominal pain. Ward underwent surgery on September 5 and then remained at Trinity for post-operative care. The surgeon, Dr. Hill, was on a short-term contract with Trinity. Ward was still at the hospital when her pain worsened on September 17. In the early morning hours of September 18, she reported feeling extreme acute pain in her abdomen. Over the next couple of hours, Ward was unhappy with the treatment she received at Trinity, and she was transferred to University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC) later that day. When she arrived at UIHC, doctors determined that Ward had a perforated bowel and was septic. Her treatment ultimately included emergency procedures and resulted in a loss of a portion of Ward's bowel.
In September 2017, Ward filed suit against Trinity and a number of surgeons, hospitalists, administrators, and nurses. As the case progressed, some parties, including Dr. Hill, were dismissed. At the time of the relevant motions, the remaining defendants were Trinity; its administrators and nurses; and Doctors P. Nadkarni, Parvathareddy, Kumar, and M. Nadkarni, all of whom are board-certified as either surgeons or hospitalists.
Ward initially disclosed expert witnesses within the statutory timeframe to support her medical-malpractice claims. Over time, however, she attempted to update the report of Dr. Jeffrey Durgin and designate Dr. Jotesh Chug as a rebuttal witness. Trinity and all of the doctors challenged the second Dr. Durgin report and argued Dr. Chug was not properly classified as a rebuttal witness through successful motions to strike. Trinity and the doctors then filed motions for summary judgment, arguing no issues of material fact remained because Ward could not prove prima facie claims of malpractice. Following a hearing, the district court granted the motions for summary judgment.[1] Ward appeals.
"We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony for an abuse of discretion." Ranes v. Adams Labs., Inc., 778 N.W.2d 677, 685 (Iowa 2010). "[A] trial court has broad discretion in ruling on such matters, and the exercise of that discretion will ordinarily not be disturbed unless it was exercised on clearly untenable grounds or to an extent clearly unreasonable." Hantsbarger v. Coffin, 501 N.W.2d 501, 505 (Iowa 1993) (quoting Donovan v. State, 445 N.W.2d 763, 766 (Iowa 1989)). "A ground or reason is untenable when it is not supported by substantial evidence or when it is based on an erroneous application of the law. Ranes, 778 N.W.2d at 685 (quoting Graber v. City of Ankeny, 616 N.W.2d 633, 638 (Iowa 2000)).
"We review the grant of summary judgment for correction of errors at law." Susie v. Family Health Care of Siouxland, P.L.C., 942 N.W.2d 333, 336 (Iowa 2020).
"We view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Id. at 337. Our review focuses of whether the movant has proved there is a genuine issue of material fact. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3). Cannon v. Bodensteiner Implement Co., 903 N.W.2d 322, 327 (Iowa 2017) (altered for readability) (quoting Nelson v. Lindaman, 867 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Iowa 2015)). "If the nonmoving party cannot generate a prima facie case in the summary judgment record, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Susie, 942 N.W.2d at 336-37.
Ward argues the district court erred in granting motions to strike her expert witnesses. She specifically alleges the court erred in excluding a supplemental report from Dr. Durgin and in finding Dr. Chug was not a rebuttal witness.
Expert witnesses in liability cases that involve licensed professionals must be disclosed to the court and opposing parties in compliance with Iowa Code section 668.11 (2017).
Iowa Code § 668.11(1), (2). Rebuttal experts are excepted from the rule. Id. § 668.11(3).
Our supreme court has classified section 668.11 as a "procedural or remedial" provision, meaning it is subject to liberal interpretation. Hantsbarger, 501 N.W.2d at 504. It has also found compliance need not be strict, but parties will be held to a standard of substantial compliance. Id. "Substantial compliance is 'compliance in respect to the essential matters necessary to assure the reasonable objectives of the statute.'" Id. (quoting Superior/Ideal, Inc. v. Bd. of Rev. of the City of Oskaloosa, 419 N.W.2d 405, 407 (Iowa 1988)). Our supreme court has stated the purpose of section 668.11 is "to require a plaintiff to have his or her proof prepared at an early stage in the litigation in order that the professional does not have to spend time, effort and expense in defending a frivolous action." Id. And yet, we are generally "unwilling to dispose of cases for failure to abide by the rules of discovery" because we prefer "to dispose of cases on the merits." Id. Still, the statute allows a court to provide relief to a party who has not complied with the statute by showing good cause. Id. at 504-05.
Here, Ward was required to certify her chosen expert and rebuttal expert witnesses by July 5, 2018 and disclose opinions and reports by September 3. Dr. Durgin's identity was disclosed on July 5, but no curriculum vitae was produced. A five-page report was provided on September 4. The report was dated August 24. Dr. Durgin was deposed on April 30, 2019, and approximately one hour into the deposition disclosed the fact that he had written a supplemental report. No defendant was aware of the supplemental report and objections were made. Ward made Dr. Durgin's supplemental report available to opposing counsel during the deposition, and it was noted the report was dated August 24, 2018, the same date as the first report.
During his deposition, Dr. Durgin testified that he drafted the supplemental report "a few months" prior to the deposition.[2] Dr. Durgin indicated that he had telephone conversations with Ward's counsel about the opinions given in the initial report, but he did not receive any new materials between the time of his first report and his second report. The first report alleged four breaches of duties by Dr. Hill, who was dismissed from the lawsuit in January 2019. The supplemental report made seven allegations of breached duties, and for the first time made allegations against other doctors and Trinity administration. The testimony reveals that Dr. Durgin, after drafting the report disclosed on September 4, engaged in another review of the same records, which led to the supplemental report disclosed to Ward's counsel on January 21, 2019.
The supplemental report makes allegations of wrongdoing and involves different doctors and entities from those contained in the first report. While Ward deemed the report "supplemental," it functions as a completely separate statement of Dr. Durgin's new findings. We agree with the district court that Dr. Durgin's supplemental report, disclosed to Ward's counsel four months after the first report was not made in compliance with the standards set forth in section 668.11. Furthermore, Ward has made no effort...
To continue reading
Request your trial