 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Bernholtz v. Des Moins Orthopaedic Surgeons1/29/2003
ension and entitled them to substitute two new, previously uncertified standard of care experts only a month before the designated trial date. We cannot agree, as there is no showing the district court abused its broad discretion when it determined good cause had not been shown. Hill v. McCartney, 590 N.W.2d 52, 54 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). The court was free to reject the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated claim of surprise at Dr. Vito's defection, Nedved v. Welch, 585 N.W.2d 238, 240 (Iowa 1998), particularly as the new experts were named approximately fifteen months beyond the certification deadline, allowing a late certification would create yet further delay in a nearly two-year-old case, and as the plaintiffs had been dilatory regarding their expert discovery despite repeated attempts by the defendants to clarify and resolve outstanding issues. See Hill, 590 N.W.2d at 54-55.
Although we could affirm the district court's decision solely on the plaintiffs' noncompliance with section 668.11, we further note there was no abuse of discretion in precluding expert testimony for noncompliance with rule 1.508. Despite repeated requests by the defendants, no rule 1.508 responses were provided until June 25, 2001, over a year beyond the court deadline, and over three months after the defendants filed their summary judgment motion. Contrary to the plaintiffs' position, there is no basis for excluding Dr. Pichler from the requirements of rule 1.508, merely because he is primarily a treating physician. See Duncan v. City of Cedar Rapids, 560 N.W.2d 320, 323 (Iowa 1997).
Because the plaintiffs failed to comply with the rules governing expert certification and discovery, the court was within its discretion to exclude from testimony the expert opinions as to standard of care and breach. Without such testimony, the plaintiffs cannot establish either a prima facie case for medical negligence or a claim of lack of informed consent. Kennis, 491 N.W.2d at 166; Oswald, 453 N.W.2d at 635. As such, summary judgment was appropriate. Having considered all of the plaintiffs' arguments, we conclude the district court must be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|