Fatima E. Belhak and Abdellatif Elfila
v.
Denice Smith, M.D., and Women’s Care Specialists, P.C.
The defendants appealed a jury verdict finding them liable for medical malpractice. The defendants argued the district court erred in submitting one of the specifications of negligence to the jury because the plaintiffs failed to present any expert evidence supporting causation for that theory. The court of appeals agreed the specification should not have been submitted to the jury. The court of appeals held defendants are entitled to a new trial because the general verdict does not indicate which of the specifications the jury found to be proven. The plaintiffs seek further review.
Applicant
Fatima E. Belhak and Abdellatif Elfila
Resister
Denice Smith, M.D., and Women’s Care Specialists, P.C.
Attorneys for the Applicant
Anthony J. Bribriesco
William J. Bribriesco
Attorneys for the Resister
Troy L. Booher
Beth E. Kennedy
Nancy J. Penner
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Dec 18, 2024 1:30 PM
Briefs
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Jeffrey D. Bert, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Heard by Bower, C.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (17 pages)
Denice Smith and her employer appeal from a medical malpractice verdict against them arising from her care of Fatima Belhak following an episiotomy performed during the birth of Belhak’s first child. Smith seeks a new trial because of insufficient evidence of causation for one of the three specifications of negligence submitted to the jury and because of attorney misconduct during closing arguments and the rest of the trial. OPINION HOLDS: Because Belhak’s expert witness did not testify that the size of suture was more likely than not a cause of Belhak’s injury, the suture specification should not have been submitted to the jury. And Smith properly preserved error on this issue by moving for a directed verdict and raising it again in her posttrial motion for a new trial. It matters not that she agreed to the jury instruction. Smith is thus entitled to a new trial on this basis alone, and we need not address whether the conduct of Belhak’s counsel would also warrant a new trial.