Filed Jan 23, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1959
View Summary for Case No. 18-1959
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, P.J. (7 pages)
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2018), arguing the State failed to prove the child could not be returned home and termination was not in the child’s best interests because of the close parent-child relationship. OPINION HOLDS: Finding clear-and-convincing proof the child could not be returned to the home at the time of termination and the closeness of the parent-child relationships does not weigh against termination, we affirm.
Filed Jan 23, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1993
View Summary for Case No. 18-1993
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Mullins, J. (2 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: The mother’s failure to argue on appeal waives error. Consequently, we affirm the termination of her parental rights.
Filed Jan 23, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-2016
View Summary for Case No. 18-2016
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Bower, J. (5 pages)
A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: We find termination of the father’s parental rights, not the establishment of a guardianship, is in the child’s best interest. We affirm the juvenile court.
Filed Jan 09, 2019
View Opinion No. 17-0949
View Summary for Case No. 17-0949
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Mary E. Chicchelly, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Danilson, S.J. Opinion by Doyle, J. (5 pages)
The petitioners appeal from the order granting summary judgment on their action to enjoin the American Arbitration Association (AAA) from arbitrating a contract dispute. OPINION HOLDS: Because the petitioners fall short of showing the “clear absence” of jurisdiction required to divest the AAA of its arbitral immunity, the district court properly granted summary judgment in the AAA’s favor.
Filed Jan 09, 2019
View Opinion No. 17-1075
View Summary for Case No. 17-1075
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert Blink, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Heard by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Danilson, S.J. Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (10 pages)
Kenneth Heard appeals from his conviction for murder in the first degree. Heard argues the district court erred in denying his motion to compel testimony from a witness, his sentence is illegal because the jury did not specifically find him to be over eighteen at the time of the offense, and the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because the jury verdict went against the weight of the evidence. OPINION HOLDS: The district court violated Heard’s right to compulsory process when it failed to determine the extent or validity of a witness’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege.
Filed Jan 09, 2019
View Opinion No. 17-1213
View Summary for Case No. 17-1213
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Danilson, S.J. Opinion by Danilson, S.J. (16 pages)
Dr. Roy Abraham and Miller Orthopedic appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment. In this medical malpractice case, the defendants contend they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff’s expert witness is not qualified under Iowa Code section 147.139 (2015) to offer the sole standard of care opinion he offered, and because the expert was “unable to opine that the alleged breach of the standard of care more likely than not caused the damages at issue.” The defendants also contend they are entitled to judgment on wrongful death damages because there is no evidence the alleged negligence caused the wrongful death. OPINION HOLDS: Viewing the record of the expert’s qualifications in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we conclude, at this juncture, the expert is qualified to testify whether Dr. Abraham breached the standard of care and was negligent in failing to culture the post-surgery infection to identify the organism that caused the infection, and this failure resulted in ineffective treatment. We agree with the district court that the plaintiff will still be subject to meeting its burden on the expert’s qualifications at the time of trial. Furthermore, we conclude the expert’s deposition testimony is sufficient to generate a jury question on causation and whether the alleged negligence caused the wrongful death is a question of fact for the jury. We affirm the district court’s denial of summary judgment.
Filed Jan 09, 2019
View Opinion No. 17-1317
View Summary for Case No. 17-1317
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Eliza J. Ovrom, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Danilson, S.J. Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (19 pages)
UnityPoint Health Cedar Rapids, doing business as St. Luke’s Hospital, appeals from the district court’s ruling on judicial review affirming the State Health Facilities Council’s decision to issue a Certificate of Need (CON) to Mercy Hospital Cedar Rapids, which allows Mercy to establish its own open-heart surgical program in its Cedar Rapids hospital. On appeal, St. Luke’s maintains the Council’s decision to grant the CON should be reversed because the Council’s interpretation of the minimum utilization rule—found in Iowa Administrative Code rule 641-203.2(3)(a)(1)—as a guideline rather than a mandate is either erroneous, see Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(c) (2015), or “irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable,” see Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(l). Additionally, St. Luke’s challenges whether some of the findings made by the Council are supported by substantial evidence in the record, see Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f), including some findings that are required by Iowa Code section 135.64 before a CON can be issued. OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court that the Council is vested with the power to interpret rule 641-203.2(3)(a)(1) and its interpretation of the rule as a guideline is not illogical, irrational, or wholly unjustifiable. Additionally, the Council’s necessary findings pursuant to Iowa Code section 135.64(2) are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and its decision to grant the CON is not irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable. We affirm the district court’s ruling on judicial review.
Filed Jan 09, 2019
View Opinion No. 17-1360
View Summary for Case No. 17-1360
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Bradley McCall, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vogel, P.J., Tabor, J., and Danilson, S.J. Opinion by Vogel, P.J. (7 pages)
Kelly Kohrs-Manriques brought suit against Tamelia Brown, as owner of a tavern, and Lowell Bence, as mortgagor of the property. Kohrs-Manriques claimed Brown’s transfer of the property to Bence was a fraudulent conveyance, designed to place the property out of her reach as a judgment creditor. The district court considered the factors of a fraudulent conveyance and found Kohrs-Manriques did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the transfer was fraudulent. OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court applied the correct standard and Kohrs-Manriques had not proved by clear and convincing evidence that a fraudulent conveyance occurred.
Filed Jan 09, 2019
View Opinion No. 17-1361
View Summary for Case No. 17-1361
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, Dale E. Ruigh, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Mullins, P.J., Bower, J., and Scott, S.J. Opinion by Scott, S.J. (7 pages)
Steve Schneider appeals the district court decision denying his request for postconviction relief from his convictions of six counts of third-degree sexual abuse. OPINION HOLDS: We find Schneider has not shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his criminal trial. We affirm the district court’s decision denying his request for postconviction relief.
Filed Jan 09, 2019
View Opinion No. 17-1460
View Summary for Case No. 17-1460
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James B. Malloy, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J. (4 pages)
Michelle Swenson appeals her conviction for possession of methamphetamine, second offense, arguing the district court improperly denied her motion to suppress evidence uncovered during a warrantless search of her purse. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s denial of Swenson’s suppression motion and her “verdict and sentence” for possession of methamphetamine, second offense.
Filed Jan 09, 2019
View Opinion No. 17-1472
View Summary for Case No. 17-1472
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Duane E. Hoffmeyer, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vogel, P.J., McDonald, J., and Blane, S.J. Opinion by Blane, S.J. (16 pages)
Defendant Hanslip appeals his convictions of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of an offensive weapon. He contends the trial court erred in admission of claimed hearsay and in denial of his attorney’s motion to withdraw from representation due to a conflict. OPINION HOLDS: (1) Trial court properly overruled defense counsel’s hearsay objection since the evidence was properly admitted under the excited utterance exception; and (2) trial court properly denied the defense counsel’s motion to withdraw following a hearing, when it removed attorney from same public defender office from representing a State’s witness in an unrelated case.
Filed Jan 09, 2019
View Opinion No. 17-1503
View Summary for Case No. 17-1503
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K. Vaudt, Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Heard by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Danilson, S.J. Opinion by Doyle, J. (30 pages)
Thomas Dunlap appeals the dismissal of his civil suit against his former employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier following the district court’s grant of summary judgment in the insurers’ favor. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm the district court’s ruling in all respects but one. The district court erred in finding the defendants were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on Dunlap’s 2012 injury claim because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the defendants’ reliance upon Dr. Wolfe’s subsequent opinion was reasonable. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Dunlap, a reasonable fact-finder could find that the defendants’ reliance was simply not reasonable once they were aware three other experts had opined a causal connection existed between Dunlap’s established 2007 work injury and his later injuries and Dr. Wolfe clarified his opinion with a condition that could change his opinion from possible causation to probable causation. Because a fact question exists as to whether the defendants’ reliance was reasonable, the claim was not fairly debatable as a matter of law. Consequently, we reverse the district court’s ruling in that regard and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction, and any costs are assessed to the defendants.