 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peppmeier v. Murphy3/31/2005
Plaintiff appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
Plaintiff Gail Peppmeier appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Bruce Murphy, D.O. and Heartland Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, P.C. She contends the court erred in determining there was insufficient evidence to present a factual dispute. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On June 2, 2000, Murphy performed a breast augmentation procedure called a bilateral mastopexy on Peppmeier. On November 28, 2000, Murphy performed a second breast augmentation on Peppmeier. At the time of both surgeries, Murphy was an employee of Heartland Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, P.C (Heartland). At some point after the surgeries, Murphy left Heartland and relocated his practice elsewhere.
On July 3, 2001, after Murphy had left Heartland, Peppmeier had a follow-up visit with Dr. Eugene Cherney, a partner at Heartland. Peppmeier alleges that during the consultation, Cherney informed her the surgery was performed incorrectly. She also alleges Cherney stated Murphy should have known prior to the first surgery that the mastopexy was not appropriate for her breasts. Peppmeier then claims Cherney told her Heartland would help her sue Murphy for the negligent operation and gave her the phone number of an attorney.
On June 3, 2002, Peppmeier filed suit against Murphy and Heartland, alleging Murphy breached the minimum standard of care when performing both surgeries. Peppmeier designated Cherney as her only expert. In his October 24, 2003 deposition, Cherney stated he did not agree to act as an expert for Peppmeier and did not plan to so testify. Cherney said he did not recall making statements to Peppmeier that the surgeries were performed incorrectly or that Murphy should have known the mastopexy was not appropriate for Peppmeier. Cherney claimed that if he made these statements, they were made out of anger toward Murphy for leaving Heartland and not because they were true. Cherney further stated he did not believe Murphy had deviated from the standard of care in treating Peppmeier.
On November 7, 2003, Murphy filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds Peppmeier failed to designate an expert who would testify Murphy breached the minimum standard of care in performing the surgeries. Heartland joined in the motion on November 19, 2003. The district court granted defendants' motion on February 23, 2004.
II. Scope and Standard of Review
We review rulings on motions for summary judgment for errors at law. Sain v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 626 N.W.2d 115, 121 (Iowa 2001). The record before the district court is reviewed to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact existed and whether the district court correctly applied the law. Id. We review the facts in the light most favorable to the party resisting the motion. McIlravy v. North River Ins. Co., 653 N.W.2d 323, 328 (Iowa 2002). The resisting party has the burden of showing a material issue of fact is in dispute. Id.
III. Analysis
In order to establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice, Peppmeier must present evidence of the applicable standard of care, demonstrate this standard has been violated, and develop a causal relationship between the violation and the alleged harm. Phillips v. Covenant Clinic, 625 N.W.2d 714, 718 (Iowa 2001). Expert testimony is nearly always required to establish each of these elements. Id. Admissions of med
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|