Plowman v. Fort Madison Community Hospita

896 N.W. 2d 393 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Pamela (P) became pregnant with their third child, Z.P., in late 2010. On January 18, 2011, Pamela began seeing Leah Steffensmeier, a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, for her prenatal care at D. On April 25, twenty-two weeks into her pregnancy, Pamela underwent an ultrasound to assess fetal growth. Dr. Pil Kang, a radiologist employed by Davis Radiology, P.C., interpreted the results and prepared a report. Dr. John Paiva, another radiologist at that clinic, reviewed and signed the report. The report found that Z.P. displayed head abnormalities and recommended follow-up. Z.P.'s head was abnormally small, less than the third-to-sixth percentile for his development. Dr. Kang did not report these findings but reported the head/abdominal circumference of Z.P. was 'within two standard deviations of normal,' with the head circumference/abdominal circumference ratio being 'slightly' below normal. On May 11, Pamela met with Dr. Steffensmeier, who told her the ultrasound showed 'that everything was fine' with the baby's development. Pamela was never informed, 'that the radiologist had found any abnormalities, or that the ultrasound was in any way abnormal.' No further testing was done as was recommended in the report. Z.P. was born. Two months later, Pamela began to have concerns about Z.P.'s development. Z.P. was diagnosed with small corpus callosum, which Ps contend relates to the head circumference as shown in the ultrasound. Z.P. suffers from cerebral palsy, microcephaly, intellectual disability, cortical visual impairment, and seizure disorder. Z.P. needs frequent visits to numerous doctors and a physical therapist comes to his home one to two times weekly. He is on daily medication for seizures and reflux. It is unlikely Z.P. will ever walk or speak. Ps sued Ds alleging that Ds negligently failed to accurately interpret, diagnose, monitor, respond to, and communicate the fetal abnormalities evident in the April 25, 2011 ultrasound. Pamela claims if she had been informed of the abnormalities prior to birth, she 'would have terminated her pregnancy.' Ps seek (1) the cost of past, present, and future extraordinary care required for Z.P. as a result of his disabilities; (2) the cost of ordinary care raising the child; (3) Pamela's mental anguish; and (4) Pamela's loss of income. Jeremy (P), the husband, filed a separate action for the same damages claims. Ds filed a motion for summary judgment; a cause of action for wrongful birth has not been recognized in Iowa. The motion was granted and Ps appealed.