SCOTT J. WATTS and JACQUELYN ANN WATTS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. JENNIE EDMUNDSON HOSPITAL, A Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-187 / 06-0106
Filed November 15, 2007
SCOTT J. WATTS and
JACQUELYN ANN WATTS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
JENNIE EDMUNDSON HOSPITAL,
A Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles L.
Smith III, Judge.
Scott J. Watts and Jacquelyn Ann Watts appeal the adverse judgment in
their
medical
malpractice
action
against
Jennie
Edmundson
Hospital.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.
Patrick Cullan, Daniel Cullan, and Sheldon Gallner, Council Bluffs, and
Paul Madgett, Omaha, Nebraska, for appellants.
Michael E. Ellwanger and Maurice B. Nieland of Rawlings, Nieland,
Probasco, Killinger, Ellwanger, Jacobs & Mohrhauser, L.L.P., Sioux City, for
appellee.
Heard by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
MAHAN, P.J.
Scott J. Watts and Jacquelyn Ann Watts (collectively referred to as the
Wattses) appeal the adverse judgment in their medical malpractice action against
Jennie Edmundson Hospital (hospital).
The Wattses allege the district court
abused its discretion on several rulings. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Scott Watts was injured in a car accident on May 25, 1997. He was taken
to the emergency room at Jennie Edmundson Hospital.
Later, physicians
determined he needed surgery to repair an injury to his aorta. During surgery,
the aorta ruptured, rendering Scott a paraplegic.
The Wattses filed this action on May 22, 1998.
The original petition
named eight defendants, including the hospital, treating physicians, and the
separate employers of some of the treating physicians. Trial was set for March
2000.
In pre-trial proceedings, the Wattses designated twenty-six witnesses,
including four expert standard-of-care witnesses.
The hospital designated
Barbara Braafhart, R.N. and cross-designated the experts of the other
defendants.
The Wattses dismissed two defendants without prejudice on January 28,
2000.
Except for the hospital, the other defendants reached a $1.5 million
settlement with the Wattses sometime in mid-March 2000. On March 22, 2000,
counsel for both parties stipulated the hospital would pay the Wattses $200,000,
and the parties would engage in further mediation. The district court’s ruling on
the stipulation states that if the case was to be tried, there would be no new
3
issues and no new witnesses.
Mediation was unsuccessful.
Due to other
litigation, this case was stayed until late 2002. 1
On May 16, 2003, the hospital filed a motion for summary judgment. The
hospital argued it had no vicarious liability for any alleged negligence of the
physician defendants and no liability for negligent credentialing or granting of
privileges to any of the physician defendants. In June 2003 the hospital filed
three motions in limine and a motion to strike new allegations of negligence. The
motions requested the court to (1) prohibit the Wattses from introducing evidence
concerning medical expenses not personally paid by them; (2) prevent a treating
nurse, Rocco Cardillo, from testifying as an expert witness; (3) prohibit an expert
witness from testifying; and (4) strike new allegations of negligence made in
supplemental interrogatories and expert witness depositions.
On July 1, 2003, the district court dismissed the two claims identified by
the hospital in its motion for summary judgment and the entire case. On July 11,
2003, the Wattses filed a motion to reconsider, arguing the “Court failed to
consider that Plaintiffs have independent actions of negligence against the
nursing staff of Defendant hospital.”
The district court affirmed the grant of
summary judgment “of claims relating to the hospital’s vicarious liability for the
negligence of the doctors, for allowing Dr. Denis-Flowes to practice medicine in
its emergency room, and Plaintiff’s earlier settlement with the doctors’ insurance
1
The hospital had been insured throughout the proceedings by PHICO Insurance.
PHICO went bankrupt and was liquidated in February 2002. The Iowa Insurance
Guarantee Association brought suit against the hospital and the Wattses, seeking a
declaration that there was no liability coverage afforded the hospital by the association.
On October 4, 2002, the Pottawattamie County District Court ruled in favor of the
Association, finding no coverage for the hospital.
4
company.” The court reinstated only the following claims against the hospital:
The hospital (1) failed to provide an adequate emergency room with appropriate
equipment and personnel; (2) permitted Scott to be admitted to a facility which
did not have the appropriate equipment and personnel to timely and properly
treat Scott’s condition; (3) failed to timely transfer Scott; (4) failed to do blood
pressures and pulses in both of Scott’s arms; (5) failed to obtain orthostatic vital
signs; and (6) abandoned Scott by failing to insure he was seen by a competent
physician for over five and one-half hours after he was admitted to the hospital.
Trial was then set for December 7, 2004.
The hospital filed another motion for summary judgment in April 2004. It
argued the Wattses failed to present enough evidence to go forward on the
nursing negligence claim. The district court denied summary judgment, stating
“Plaintiffs have therefore generated a genuine issue as to material fact and the
very narrow factual dispute of whether the nurses who treated Scott Watts were
guilty of independent acts of negligence.”
On November 2, 2004, the district court sustained the hospital’s motions
from June 2003. It reiterated the only issues to be tried were the six issues listed
above. The Wattses filed a motion “to return to status quo,” requesting the court
to return the case to the state it was in at the time of the March 22, 2000 hearing.
The district court overruled the motion. Trial was continued until May 17, 2005.
In December 2004 Scott sought medical treatment for memory problems.
A PET scan of his brain indicated “nonspecific abnormalities of brain metabolism
supporting the clinical diagnosis of encephalopathy.”
The treating physician
recommended Scott see a neurologist. On January 19, 2005, the district court
5
entered an order continuing the trial until October 25, 2005. The order also
stated in part:
2. Discovery shall be closed as of August 29, 2005. Parties
shall schedule all discovery so that responses thereto will be due
on or before the deadline.
3. All pleadings shall be closed September 2, 2005. All
parties are authorized to amend pleadings without order of court
until said closing date.
The Wattses filed an amended petition on April 25, 2005. The district
court struck the petition, finding it contained new allegations that included the
previously dismissed physician defendants.
It also reviewed the history and
particular circumstances in the case and reiterated the only issue to be tried was
that of nursing negligence. The district court also struck the Wattses’ additional
designation of witnesses filed May 17, 2005. That list contained the name of
Dr. Abraham Scheer.
The court determined its previous rulings had already
concluded the parties did not have leave to designate additional expert
witnesses. The July 29, 2005 order also stated that the “court also finds that any
further amendments to pleadings must be granted prior approval by the court,
notwithstanding any prior order of this court to the contrary.”
In May, June, and July 2005 Scott was examined by Dr. Scheer, a
neurologist. Dr. Scheer was unable to obtain a pulse in Scott’s lower extremities
and opined that Scott has decreased cognition, poor attention, memory
problems, emotional issues, post traumatic stress, sleep disturbance, poor
planning, poor judgment, emotional expression, and less inhibition. When the
symptoms remained unexplained, Dr. Scheer referred Scott to a cardiothoracic
6
surgeon. The Wattses learned Scott had a coarctation of the aorta, allegedly
caused by the wrong graft being used during his 1997 surgery at the hospital.
Both parties filed several motions during the summer of 2005.
On
September 2, 2005, the Wattses filed a second amended petition. It advanced
the theory that the hospital did not use the proper graft during Scott’s surgery.
On October 12, 2005, however, the district court struck the second amended
petition, ruled again that the only allegations proceeding to trial would be of
nursing negligence, and admonished that if the Wattses’ expert witnesses were
going to testify beyond their opinions in previous depositions, those experts had
to be made available to the hospital before trial.
Trial commenced October 25, 2005, and proceeded until November 7,
2005.
The Wattses attempted to argue the hospital was liable for negligent
nursing because it was the wrong hospital and provided the wrong doctor and the
wrong equipment to repair Scott’s aortic tear. After a relatively short deliberation,
the jury determined the hospital was not at fault through its employee nurses.
The Wattses filed motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Both were denied. The Wattses now allege several abuses of discretion pretrial,
during trial, and posttrial.
II. Merits
A. Amended Petitions
The Wattses argue the district court abused its discretion in refusing to
allow them to file two amended petitions. The first amended petition was filed
April 25, 2005. The district court denied the amended petition in an order filed
July 29, 2005. The order stated that the Wattses’ amended petition sought to
7
introduce the vicarious liability issues again. It also considered the fact that the
original petition was filed seven years previously, several trial dates had passed,
and two motions for summary judgment had been ruled upon. It further stated no
new issues would be introduced and the only issue that remained was nursing
negligence.
2005.
The Wattses’ second amended petition was filed September 2,
This new petition alleged new-found facts and issues of negligence,
including allegations that the wrong graft had been used, the physicians were not
properly licensed to perform the surgery, and the hospital did not have particular
equipment or personnel to treat Scott.
liability issue.
It also again reiterated the vicarious
The district court denied the petition, reiterating its previous
orders.
Rule 1.402(4) of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure states in part:
Otherwise, a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or
by written consent of the adverse party. Leave to amend, including
leave to amend to conform to the proof, shall be freely given when
justice so requires.
(Emphasis added.)
We review the district court’s ruling on whether to allow an amended
petition for abuse of discretion. Holliday v. Rain & Hail L.L.C., 690 N.W.2d 59, 63
(Iowa 2004). It is generally recognized that courts in this state should be liberal
in allowing amendments. See Rife v. D.T. Corner, Inc., 641 N.W.2d 761, 767
(Iowa 2002); Patten v. City of Waterloo, 260 N.W.2d 840, 842 (Iowa 1977); see
also State v. Taylor, 689 N.W.2d 116, 130 (Iowa 2004) (holding that a trial is a
search for the truth). That does not change the fact, however, that the district
court has considerable discretion and may deny the pleading. See Glenn v.
8
Carlstrom, 556 N.W.2d 800, 804 (Iowa 1996). We must look to the unique facts
of this case in order to determine if the court’s denial of the amendment of the
pleadings was an abuse of discretion.
On January 19, 2005, the district court entered an order continuing trial
until October 25, 2005, and setting out deadlines for discovery and amendment
of the pleadings. Those deadlines were August 29, 2005, and September 2,
2005, respectively. Pursuant to the January 19, 2005 order, the Wattses filed an
amended petition on April 25, 2005. The district court granted the hospital’s
motion to strike said amended petition on July 29, 2005. The district court also
inserted language into the order stating that any further attempts to amend the
pleadings would require “prior approval by the court, notwithstanding any prior
order of this court to the contrary.”
On September 2, 2005, the Wattses filed a second amended petition. The
Wattses alleged the hospital failed to use the proper graft and alleged this
pleading was the result of newly discovered evidence from Dr. Scheer. The
district court struck the second amended petition in an order dated October 11,
2005. The Wattses motion to file additional evidence was also overruled. In
addition, the court excluded Dr. Scheer as a witness in an order which states:
Dr. Abe Scheer will not be allowed to testify concerning his testing
or opinions as to causation on issues of brain injury for the reasons
set out in the motion to limit. It was a new allegation of negligence
related to the issue of a wrong graft. The Court previously ruled
excluding that theory of negligence.
Further, Dr. Sheer is clearly a retained expert and was not
timely designated.
....
Finally, the testimony concerning the wrong graft or brain
injury was clearly beyond the clear understanding concerning the
limits on the case as described in the hearing before Judge Irvin on
9
March 22, 2000, and subsequent orders of this Court limiting the
case to those items set out in Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Answers to
Interrogatories, previously referred to as paragraphs A, B, C, E, F
and G.
We note first of all that the issues in this complicated case were narrowed
very early on in the proceedings. The action was filed in May 1998, and trial was
originally scheduled for March 2000.
On March 21, 2000, the district court
stated:
If these settlement negotiations should fall through or this case not
be completely resolved and it’s necessary that it come back to trial,
it goes to trial in the form and shape it was in this morning. There
will be no additional issues raised. There would be no new
witnesses.
The case did not settle, and other collateral litigation forced a stay until late 2002.
It is clear from the record there was activity in this case during 2003 and
2004. In fact, there was enough activity that the trial date was reset at least
twice, the last date being to May 17, 2005.
In December 2004 Scott began receiving medical treatment for new
symptoms. The January 19, 2005 order continuing trial until October 25, 2005,
made it clear the parties could continue discovery and file new pleadings without
order of court.
A review of the record and analysis of the law leads us to
conclude the district court abused its discretion in striking the amended petitions
submitted thereafter. We certainly understand the frustration of the district court
attempting to manage this case for purposes of trial. However, we conclude the
issues in this case were narrowed very early in the proceedings and unduly
restricted thereafter.
10
B. Exclusion of Evidence and Testimony
For the same reasons as stated above, we conclude the district court
abused its discretion in excluding additional evidence and witnesses.
C. Summary
This case is reversed and remanded for new trial. All pretrial matters shall
be heard anew. The parties shall not be bound by the restrictions and limitations
set forth in the previous orders, including the designation of expert witnesses.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.
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.
