Oswald v. LeGrand
453 N.W.2d 634, 1990 WL 16851 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expert testimony is not required to establish the standard of care in a medical malpractice case when the alleged negligence is so obvious as to be within the common knowledge of a layperson. Additionally, a party may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress absent physical injury where the professional relationship involves matters of such deep emotional concern, like childbirth, that a breach of duty will foreseeably cause mental anguish.
Facts:
- During her pregnancy, Susan Oswald experienced bleeding and cramping, and was under the care of doctors at Mercy Health Center.
- After being sent home, her condition worsened. She returned to the hospital where her husband, Larry Oswald, had to insist on her admission over the advice of Dr. Christopher Clark.
- Upon admission, one nurse greeted Susan Oswald by asking, 'What are you doing here? The doctor told you to stay home and rest.'
- Another nurse told Susan Oswald that if she miscarried, the fetus would be a 'big blob of blood.'
- Dr. Clark was heard yelling outside Susan Oswald's room, 'I don’t want to take that patient. She’s not my patient and I am sick and tired of Dr. Smith dumping his case load on me.'
- While Susan Oswald was screaming in pain and insisting she was in active labor, Dr. Clark performed an abdominal exam but not a pelvic exam, told her husband to calm her down, and then left the hospital for vacation before his scheduled shift ended.
- Minutes after Dr. Clark left, Susan Oswald began delivering her baby in a hospital hallway.
- Following the birth, a nurse performed a brief visual check, declared the infant stillborn, and placed her on an instrument tray. Dr. Larry LeGrand arrived later and did not independently examine the infant for signs of life.
- Nearly thirty minutes later, after Larry Oswald noticed the infant grasp his finger, nurses confirmed she was alive. The baby, Natalie Sue, died approximately twelve hours later.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan and Larry Oswald (plaintiffs) sued Mercy Health Center and Drs. Clark, Smith, and LeGrand (defendants) in an Iowa district court (trial court) for medical malpractice.
- The defendants successfully moved to bar the Oswalds from offering expert testimony due to the plaintiffs' failure to designate an expert witness within the statutory 180-day time limit.
- Following this ruling, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Oswalds could not establish the required standard of care or its breach without an expert.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, dismissing the lawsuit.
- The Oswalds (appellants) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'common knowledge' exception to the requirement for expert testimony in medical malpractice cases apply to claims for emotional distress arising from unprofessional communication and patient abandonment by medical staff during and immediately after a premature birth?
Opinions:
Majority - Neuman, J.
Yes. Certain claims of medical malpractice, particularly those involving unprofessional and insensitive conduct during childbirth, fall within the 'common knowledge' exception and do not require expert testimony to survive summary judgment. The court reasoned that while claims regarding the technical cause of premature labor or the infant's chances of survival require expert testimony, other conduct does not. A lay jury can comprehend and evaluate the wrongfulness of a nurse's cruel remarks, a doctor's tirade outside a patient's room, and a physician abandoning a patient who is hysterically and correctly claiming to be in active labor. The court also held that recovery for emotional distress is permissible here, carving out an exception to the physical injury rule for breaches of professional duties in contexts, like childbirth, that are so emotionally charged that distress is an inevitable result of a breach. Furthermore, the standard of care for determining if the infant was alive could be established through the defendant doctors' own deposition testimony, which function as admissions against interest.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the 'common knowledge' exception in medical malpractice litigation, extending it beyond physical errors to encompass unprofessional communication and patient abandonment that causes emotional distress. It establishes that in highly vulnerable situations like childbirth, the doctor-patient relationship includes a duty to avoid causing emotional harm through crass or insensitive behavior. By allowing plaintiffs to proceed without an independent expert in such cases, and by permitting the use of defendants' own testimony to establish the standard of care, the ruling lowers a substantial barrier for plaintiffs alleging egregious, non-technical professional misconduct.
Unlock the full brief for Oswald v. LeGrand