Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Case No. 17-1934

Mumm
v.
Jennie Edmundson Memorial Hospital d/b/a Methodist Jennie Edmundson Hospital, Emergency Physicians of Western Iowa, L.L.C. and Paul C. Mileris, M.D.

Plaintiff appealed from an order denying her motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of defendants on her medical-malpractice claim. Plaintiff contended the trial court erred by failing to provide further instructions to the jury in response to a question from the jury regarding the verdict form. The court of appeals affirmed. Plaintiff seeks further review.

County:
Pottawattamie

Applicant

Mumm

Resisters

Jennie Edmundson Memorial Hospital d/b/a Methodist Jennie Edmundson Hospital, Emergency Physicians of Western Iowa, L.L.C. and Paul C. Mileris, M.D.

Attorneys for Applicant

Randall J. Shanks

Attorneys for Resisters

Michael W. Ellwanger for Jennie Edmundson Memorial Hospital

Mary M. Schott, Thomas J. Shomaker, and Robert A. Mooney for Emergency Physicians of Western Iowa, L.L.C. and Paul C. Mileris, M.D.

Supreme Court

Oral Argument Schedule

15-15-5

Feb 12, 2019 1:30 PM

Briefs

Supreme Court Opinion

Opinion Number:
17-1934
Date Published:
Mar 01, 2019

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Opinion

Opinion Number:
17-1934
Date Published:
Oct 10, 2018
Summary

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Gregory W. Steensland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Per Curiam.  Dissent by Doyle, J.  (9 pages)

            Mandi Mumm appeals the order denying her motion for new trial after a jury found in favor of the defendants on her medical-malpractice claim.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in answering questions submitted by the jury during deliberations, we affirm the order denying Mumm’s motion for new trial.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Because Iowa Code section 668.3(5) (2017) mandates a court inform the jury of the effects of comparative fault as applied to the jury’s answers concerning fault, I believe the trial court erred in failing to answer the jury’s question concerning the effects of comparative fault.  This material omission of the law is the substantial equivalent of a material misstatement of the law, and Mumm is entitled to a new trial.  I would reverse the order denying her motion for new trial and remand for further proceedings.

Other Information

Date Further Review is Granted:
Dec 04, 2018

View archived opinions from prior to November 2017

© 2020 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.