DAN E. MIULLI, D.O., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE IOWA CLINIC, P.C., JOHN R. MAWK, M.D., STUART (RANDY) WINSTON, M.D., JOHN C. VAN GILDER, M.D., BRUCE L. HUG HES, M.D., THE STATE OF IOWA, CATHY MCCULLOUGH, THERESA O'CONNELL WEEG, JOHN C. VAN GILDER, M.D., in His Capacity as a File Reviewer, STUART (RANDY) WINSTON, M.D., in His Capacity as Member of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, QUENTIN DURWARD, M.D., in His Capacity as a Member of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, BRUCE L. HUGHES, M.D., in His Capacity as a Member of the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, and STUART (RANDY) WINSTON, M.D. , in His Capacity as a Consultant to the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, Defendants-Appellees.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-423 / 05-1044
Filed October 25, 2006
DAN E. MIULLI, D.O.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
THE IOWA CLINIC, P.C., JOHN R.
MAWK, M.D., STUART (RANDY)
WINSTON, M.D., JOHN C. VAN GILDER,
M.D., BRUCE L. HUGHES, M.D., THE
STATE OF IOWA, CATHY MCCULLOUGH,
THERESA O'CONNELL WEEG, JOHN C.
VAN GILDER, M.D., in His Capacity as a
File Reviewer, STUART (RANDY) WINSTON,
M.D., in His Capacity as Member of the
Iowa Board of Medical Examiners,
QUENTIN DURWARD, M.D., in His Capacity
as a Member of the Iowa Board of Medical
Examiners, BRUCE L. HUGHES, M.D., in
His Capacity as a Member of the Iowa
Board of Medical Examiners, and STUART
(RANDY) WINSTON, M.D., in His Capacity
as a Consultant to the Iowa Board of
Medical Examiners,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carla T. Schemmel
and D.J. Stovall, Judges.
Plaintiff appeals from a ruling granting defendants’ motions for summary
judgment and dismissal. AFFIRMED.
2
Michael Sellers, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Patrick J. Hopkins of Gaudineer, Comito & George, L.L.P., West Des
Moines, for appellee Bruce L. Hughes, M.D.
J. Richard Johnson of White & Johnson, P.C., Cedar Rapids, and Jason
Miller and Harry Perkins III of Patterson, Lorentzen, Duffield, Timmons, Irish,
Becker & Ordway, Des Moines, for appellee Stuart (Randy) Winston, M.D.
John F. Lorentzen and Patrick B. White of Nyemaster, Goode, West,
Hansell & O’Brien, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee The Iowa Clinic, P.C.
Lisa R. Perdue and Patrick J. McNulty of Grefe & Sidney, P.L.C., Des
Moines, for appellee John R. Mawk, M.D.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Shirley A. Steffe, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellees State of Iowa, Theresa O’Connell Weeg, and
Cathy McCullough.
Richard M. Tucker and Pope S. Yamada, Iowa City, for appellee John C.
VanGuilder, M.D.
N. Richard Willia of Willia, Stahle & Andreasen, L.L.P., Sioux City, for
appellee Quentin Durward, M.D.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
3
MAHAN, J.
Dr. Dan Miulli, a neurosurgeon, appeals from the district court’s ruling
granting the defendants’ 1 motions for summary judgment and dismissal. In 2001,
following an extensive investigation and four-day hearing, the Iowa Board of
Medical Examiners issued a forty-nine-page written decision restricting
Dr. Miulli’s license to practice medicine and ordering him to undergo retraining
before he could practice neurosurgery without restrictions. The Board’s decision
was affirmed by the district court on judicial review and by this court on appeal.
See Miulli v. Iowa Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, No. 03-0319 (Iowa Ct. App. April 28,
2004).
Dr. Miulli filed this action in July 2001, while the administrative charges
brought by the Board were pending. Dr. Miulli’s petition included various counts
related to the defendants’ alleged tortious conduct in relation to their respective
roles in the Board’s proceedings to restrict his medical license. The defendants
filed motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss. The district court
granted motions for summary judgment filed by The Iowa Clinic and Drs. Mawk,
1
Dr. John R. Mawk was the chief of neurosurgery at Mercy Hospital in Des Moines and
is an employee of The Iowa Clinic, P.C. He reported complaints regarding Dr. Miulli’s
practice with the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners. Dr. Stuart (Randy) Winston was
chief of neurosurgery at Mercy when Dr. Miulli first applied for privileges, an employee of
The Iowa Clinic, and a member of the Board for a short period of time during the
investigation of Dr. Miulli’s case. Dr. John C. Van Gilder is a neurosurgeon in Iowa City,
and served on the peer review committee at the request of the Board. Dr. Quentin
Durward was a member of the Board and served on the hearing panel for Dr. Miulli’s
case. Dr. Bruce L. Hughes was a member of the Board and participated at a Board
disciplinary committee meeting in January 2001, at Dr. Miulli’s request. Dr. Huges did
not serve on hearing panel for Dr. Miulli’s case. Cathy McCullough was the Board’s
investigator. Theresa O’Connell Weeg is an assistant attorney general who acted as
general counsel and/or prosecuting attorney for the Board.
4
Winston, Van Gilder, and Hughes; and motions to dismiss filed by the State,
McCullough, Weeg, and Dr. Durward.
Dr. Miulli appeals, arguing the district court erred in sustaining the
defendants’ motions. Upon our review for correction of errors at law, Iowa R.
App. P. 6.4; Iowa Tel. Ass’n v. City of Hawarden, 589 N.W.2d 245, 250 (Iowa
1999), we affirm the district court.
Dr. Miulli asserted at the administrative hearing before the Board that the
charges against him were the result of a conspiracy to destroy his practice and of
unfair bias and prejudice. The Board rejected his assertions, concluding:
In order to fulfill its obligation to protect the public, the Board is
required to investigate all complaints that are made, regardless of
the source of the complaint or possible bias of the complainant.
The investigation of the complaint in this case revealed legitimate,
serious concerns about [Dr. Miulli’s] competency. The abundant
evidentiary record documents several substantial violations of the
standard of care and serious concerns about [Dr. Miulli’s] clinical
and operative judgment.
Dr. Miulli again raised the issue of bias in his petition for judicial review. The
district court affirmed the Board’s ruling, addressing Dr. Miulli’s claims of bias in
detail. On appeal to this court, Dr. Miulli again raised the issue of bias. This
court, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the district court’s ruling, concluding in
relevant part:
[T]hroughout his brief, Dr. Miulli alleges that several individuals
involved in the disciplinary process were biased against him. The
Board and the district court carefully considered Dr. Miulli’s
allegations of bias, and found the Board’s action was based on
serious medical concerns, not merely bias against Dr. Miulli. We
find the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
Miulli, No. 03-0319 (Iowa Ct. App. April 28, 2004).
5
After a careful review of the record in this case, we conclude the
allegations raised by Dr. Miulli are nothing more than an improper collateral
attack on the Board’s decision and the subsequent decisions on appeal. 2
A
collateral attack is
an attack made by or in an action or proceeding that has an
independent purpose other than by impeaching or overturning of
the judgment, although impeaching or overturning the judgment
may be necessary to the success of the action.
City of Chariton v. J.C. Blunk Constr. Co., 253 Iowa 805, 816, 112 N.W.2d 829,
835 (1962) (citation omitted). Dr. Miulli “does not ask that the previous judgment
be set aside; [he] ignores it and asks damages on a contention which was clearly
answered adversely to [him].” Id. at 817, 112 N.W.2d at 835-36. The Board and
the courts on judicial review found no evidence that a conspiracy or bias tainted
the administrative proceedings. The administrative order and related decisions
on judicial review would necessarily be impeached or overturned if Dr. Miulli was
successful in this case--clearly an impermissible result. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s rulings dismissing Dr. Miulli’s claims.
AFFIRMED.
2
While this was not the ground upon which the district court relied in ruling on the
defendants’ motions, it was a ground urged by the defendants in district court; therefore,
we may uphold the district court’s rulings on this basis. DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d
56, 61 (Iowa 2002).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
