IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1148 Filed October 11, 2017
V.P., a minor, by DHIREN PATEL and SHITAL PATEL, his parents and next friends, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
DR. GREGG CALDERWOOD and GREAT RIVER WOMEN'S HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J.
Schilling, Judge.
A minor by his parents and next friends appeals the district court’s rulings
regarding rebuttal evidence and refusal to grant a new trial. AFFIRMED.
Steven J. Crowley and Edward Prill of Crowley, Bünger & Prill, Burlington,
for appellant.
Christine L. Conover and Carrie L. Thompson of Simmons Perrine Moyer
Bergman, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellees.
Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, Judge.
A minor (V.P.) by his parents and next friends appeals the district court’s
rulings regarding rebuttal evidence and refusal to grant a new trial. We find the
district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow rebuttal evidence.
We also find the plaintiff did not preserve error on his motion for new trial. We
affirm the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
V.P was born on March 2010 after a four and a half hour second stage
labor. V.P. was barely alive and required intensive resuscitation efforts. He was
quickly transferred to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. V.P. was
oxygen deprived and had some level of acidosis.1 V.P. now suffers from severe
and permanent brain damage and cerebral palsy.
The plaintiff filed suit against Dr. Gregg W. Calderwood, Great River
Women’s Health (Great River), and Great River Medical Center, though Great
River Medical Center was subsequently dismissed form the case. The plaintiff
claims Dr. Calderwood and Great River failed to properly diagnose oxygen
deprivation during labor, and, as a result, failed to perform a cesarean section
before V.P.’s injuries became severe and permanent.
Trial began on March 1, 2016, and lasted thirteen days. During the trial,
both sides presented a number of witnesses, including medical experts. Much of
the testimony focused on a fetal heart rate tracing generated by a Phillips Model
1 Fetal acidosis is a condition in which an increased level of acid is present in an unborn child’s blood. 3
500X Fetal Heart Monitor. The plaintiff attempted to introduce an expert to
provide rebuttal testimony, but the district court found the testimony was
not proper rebuttal . . . because a significant part of the evidence is cumulative . . . some of the proffered testimony is an effort to introduce Exhibit 145 . . . when the plaintiff was unable to do so during the case in chief . . . [and] the testimony of [the expert] injects one or more new issues or sub-issues into this trial.
The jury found Dr. Calderwood was not negligent. The plaintiff moved for a new
trial based on Dr. Calderwood’s statements during his testimony that the trial was
“pretty much torture” and if he felt he was at fault he would have told his
malpractice insurer “just pay and let me get on with my life.” The motion was
denied.
The plaintiff now appeals claiming the district court erred by excluding
rebuttal evidence and by failing to grant a new trial.
II. Standard of Review
Trial courts are given broad discretion to admit rebuttal evidence, and the
court’s decision will only be disturbed if a clear abuse of discretion is shown.
Carolan v. Hill, 553 N.W.2d 882, 889 (Iowa 1996). “An abuse of discretion is
shown only where such discretion was exercised by the court on grounds or for
reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Id. A trial
court’s hearsay ruling is reviewed for correction of errors at law. State v. Huser,
894 N.W.2d 472, 495 (Iowa 2017).
III. Rebuttal Evidence
The plaintiff claims the district court erred by excluding the evidence
offered as rebuttal. The district court found the offered evidence was in part
cumulative, an attempt to introduce evidence the plaintiff had been unable to 4
enter during the case in chief, and to add new issues to the trial. “Rebuttal
evidence is that which explains, repels, controverts, or disproves evidence
produced by the opposing party.” Carolan, 553 N.W.2d at 889. “Evidence that
has no direct tendency to do this is inadmissible on rebuttal.” Id.
The plaintiff attempted to introduce the expert testimony of Dr. Barry
Schifrin, concerning: (1) the tracings clearly showed a confusion of maternal and
fetal heart rate by mid-morning; (2) the fetal heart monitor frequently confused
the heart rate of the fetus and the mother; (3) the strip could not have been
tracing V.P.’s heart rate near the time of birth, as V.P. was born severely
stressed and compromised and the tracing did not indicate this; (4) the tracings
of the heart rate the machine produces cannot be relied on to differentiate the
maternal and fetal heart rate without some other indicia; (5) Dr. Schifrin
consulting on the technical aspects of the machine and the development of the
technology to monitor fetal heart rate; (6) echocardiograms are more accurate to
monitor the mother’s heart rate than pulse oximeters; and (7) exhibit 145 was the
proper manual for the fetal heart monitor used by Dr. Calderwood and the
manual contained information regarding the proper standard of care, including
using a separate heart monitor to warn of confusion between the fetal and
maternal heart rate.
a. Cumulative Evidence
The district court made general statements holding the majority of Dr.
Schifrin’s testimony was cumulative. “Evidence which is merely cumulative,
adding nothing further to the position taken by previous witnesses, which merely 5
bolsters or supplements that already adduced by the plaintiff, is not admissible as
rebuttal.” Id. (quoting 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial § 374, at 573 (1991)).
The bulk of Dr. Schifrin’s testimony was a detailed analysis of the heart
rate tracings generated by the monitor. In response to defendant’s objections,
plaintiff’s counsel stated he understood the rebuttal testimony was “substantial” in
length and conceded, “We don’t have to go through the [tracings] again . . .”
Multiple experts from both sides presented detailed testimony regarding what
was taking place and at what time based on the tracings. The plaintiff claims Dr.
Schifrin’s testimony was not cumulative, as it addressed confusion between the
maternal and fetal heart rate and opined the heart rate near the time of birth
could not have been correct considering V.P.’s condition at birth.
During her testimony, plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Thatcher, testified,
“Coincidence is a term that we see . . . when mother’s heart rate is similar to the
heart rate [of the baby] . . . . [The monitor] alerts us to say, hey, we may not be
picking up baby, this might be mom instead.” Dr. Thatcher again testified,
“Coincidence is an alert that the machine—the fetal heart rate monitor will alert
the staff that there is a similarity between the mother’s heart rate and what the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1148 Filed October 11, 2017
V.P., a minor, by DHIREN PATEL and SHITAL PATEL, his parents and next friends, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
DR. GREGG CALDERWOOD and GREAT RIVER WOMEN'S HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J.
Schilling, Judge.
A minor by his parents and next friends appeals the district court’s rulings
regarding rebuttal evidence and refusal to grant a new trial. AFFIRMED.
Steven J. Crowley and Edward Prill of Crowley, Bünger & Prill, Burlington,
for appellant.
Christine L. Conover and Carrie L. Thompson of Simmons Perrine Moyer
Bergman, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellees.
Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, Judge.
A minor (V.P.) by his parents and next friends appeals the district court’s
rulings regarding rebuttal evidence and refusal to grant a new trial. We find the
district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow rebuttal evidence.
We also find the plaintiff did not preserve error on his motion for new trial. We
affirm the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
V.P was born on March 2010 after a four and a half hour second stage
labor. V.P. was barely alive and required intensive resuscitation efforts. He was
quickly transferred to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. V.P. was
oxygen deprived and had some level of acidosis.1 V.P. now suffers from severe
and permanent brain damage and cerebral palsy.
The plaintiff filed suit against Dr. Gregg W. Calderwood, Great River
Women’s Health (Great River), and Great River Medical Center, though Great
River Medical Center was subsequently dismissed form the case. The plaintiff
claims Dr. Calderwood and Great River failed to properly diagnose oxygen
deprivation during labor, and, as a result, failed to perform a cesarean section
before V.P.’s injuries became severe and permanent.
Trial began on March 1, 2016, and lasted thirteen days. During the trial,
both sides presented a number of witnesses, including medical experts. Much of
the testimony focused on a fetal heart rate tracing generated by a Phillips Model
1 Fetal acidosis is a condition in which an increased level of acid is present in an unborn child’s blood. 3
500X Fetal Heart Monitor. The plaintiff attempted to introduce an expert to
provide rebuttal testimony, but the district court found the testimony was
not proper rebuttal . . . because a significant part of the evidence is cumulative . . . some of the proffered testimony is an effort to introduce Exhibit 145 . . . when the plaintiff was unable to do so during the case in chief . . . [and] the testimony of [the expert] injects one or more new issues or sub-issues into this trial.
The jury found Dr. Calderwood was not negligent. The plaintiff moved for a new
trial based on Dr. Calderwood’s statements during his testimony that the trial was
“pretty much torture” and if he felt he was at fault he would have told his
malpractice insurer “just pay and let me get on with my life.” The motion was
denied.
The plaintiff now appeals claiming the district court erred by excluding
rebuttal evidence and by failing to grant a new trial.
II. Standard of Review
Trial courts are given broad discretion to admit rebuttal evidence, and the
court’s decision will only be disturbed if a clear abuse of discretion is shown.
Carolan v. Hill, 553 N.W.2d 882, 889 (Iowa 1996). “An abuse of discretion is
shown only where such discretion was exercised by the court on grounds or for
reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Id. A trial
court’s hearsay ruling is reviewed for correction of errors at law. State v. Huser,
894 N.W.2d 472, 495 (Iowa 2017).
III. Rebuttal Evidence
The plaintiff claims the district court erred by excluding the evidence
offered as rebuttal. The district court found the offered evidence was in part
cumulative, an attempt to introduce evidence the plaintiff had been unable to 4
enter during the case in chief, and to add new issues to the trial. “Rebuttal
evidence is that which explains, repels, controverts, or disproves evidence
produced by the opposing party.” Carolan, 553 N.W.2d at 889. “Evidence that
has no direct tendency to do this is inadmissible on rebuttal.” Id.
The plaintiff attempted to introduce the expert testimony of Dr. Barry
Schifrin, concerning: (1) the tracings clearly showed a confusion of maternal and
fetal heart rate by mid-morning; (2) the fetal heart monitor frequently confused
the heart rate of the fetus and the mother; (3) the strip could not have been
tracing V.P.’s heart rate near the time of birth, as V.P. was born severely
stressed and compromised and the tracing did not indicate this; (4) the tracings
of the heart rate the machine produces cannot be relied on to differentiate the
maternal and fetal heart rate without some other indicia; (5) Dr. Schifrin
consulting on the technical aspects of the machine and the development of the
technology to monitor fetal heart rate; (6) echocardiograms are more accurate to
monitor the mother’s heart rate than pulse oximeters; and (7) exhibit 145 was the
proper manual for the fetal heart monitor used by Dr. Calderwood and the
manual contained information regarding the proper standard of care, including
using a separate heart monitor to warn of confusion between the fetal and
maternal heart rate.
a. Cumulative Evidence
The district court made general statements holding the majority of Dr.
Schifrin’s testimony was cumulative. “Evidence which is merely cumulative,
adding nothing further to the position taken by previous witnesses, which merely 5
bolsters or supplements that already adduced by the plaintiff, is not admissible as
rebuttal.” Id. (quoting 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial § 374, at 573 (1991)).
The bulk of Dr. Schifrin’s testimony was a detailed analysis of the heart
rate tracings generated by the monitor. In response to defendant’s objections,
plaintiff’s counsel stated he understood the rebuttal testimony was “substantial” in
length and conceded, “We don’t have to go through the [tracings] again . . .”
Multiple experts from both sides presented detailed testimony regarding what
was taking place and at what time based on the tracings. The plaintiff claims Dr.
Schifrin’s testimony was not cumulative, as it addressed confusion between the
maternal and fetal heart rate and opined the heart rate near the time of birth
could not have been correct considering V.P.’s condition at birth.
During her testimony, plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Thatcher, testified,
“Coincidence is a term that we see . . . when mother’s heart rate is similar to the
heart rate [of the baby] . . . . [The monitor] alerts us to say, hey, we may not be
picking up baby, this might be mom instead.” Dr. Thatcher again testified,
“Coincidence is an alert that the machine—the fetal heart rate monitor will alert
the staff that there is a similarity between the mother’s heart rate and what the
machine is picking up as the baby’s heart rate.” Dr. Thatcher also noted specific
times in the tracings when the heart rates were in close proximity. Dr. Thatcher
noted the specific times the monitor alerted the defendants a coincidence
occurred:
Q: All right. Let’s move on to—at about 2:47 here, sorry, it says coincidence—a coincidence detected by fetal monitor and then alarm acknowledged. Is that self-explanatory? A: Yes. Q: The alarm went off and Nurse Bonar acknowledged it. . . . A: Yes. 6
.... Q: At 7 a.m., just before the beginning of second stage labor, it looks like the fetal heart rate for baby is recorded at 130 [beats per minute], correct? A: Yes. Q: Now—so we know that is coming through one of those machines-through the transducer, correct? A: Yes. Q: And at 7:03 the maternal heart rate is reported to be 125, correct? A: Yes. Q: And I note that it follows a maternal blood pressure reading, so now [the baby] is listed at 122—I think it was 122? A: I think it was 130. Q: I’m sorry, 130, that’s right.
The plaintiff also claims Dr. Schifrin’s testimony asserted simply observing
the tracings was not an acceptable practice and a separate monitor should have
been used, such as a pulse oximeter or fetal scalp electrode. Again, the plaintiff
presented similar expert testimony during the case in chief. Dr. Thatcher
testified:
A: This is pulse oximeter. So pulse meaning heart rate, right? This goes on mom’s finger, okay? And this plugs in, so we can tell what mom’s heart rate is. It will also tell us her oxygen saturation in her blood level. Q: Okay. A: But the primary use for this on the machine is to look for the mother’s heart rate. Q: Okay. Why is it important to separate mom’s heart rate from baby’s? A: It is important to remember that the [fetal heart monitor] detects blood flow. It can detect baby’s heart—it can detect baby’s blood flow, it can detect mom’s blood flow, okay? Q: All right. I’m going to—I’m showing you what is Exhibit 102. It is a demonstrative exhibit and it’s in a package. Can you identify what that is? A: This is a . . . fetal scalp electrode. This is an internal monitor. . . . When we do an exam, we will put this on the baby’s head and this will measure the baby’s heart tones directly. Q: Okay. So this is like—this measures it right on the baby themselves or herself? A: Yes it . . . actually gets an [echocardiogram]. It gets a heart pattern and it transmits it and shows up as an internal, so it is more specific. .... Q: I’m holding the pulse oximeter, and as you said earlier this gets hooked to mom’s finger, and let’s first talk about are there 7
any disadvantages to this, from a medical standpoint? A: No, not that I am aware of. . . . Q: Right. Again, is this non-invasive? A: Oh, it’s non-invasive. That’s one of the advantages, yes. Q: And if this is plugged into the machine, the machine knows I’m getting mom’s heartbeat through this sensor? A: That is correct. Q: And then it can compare what it’s getting through the [fetal heart monitor] and the pulse oximeter and say how do these look, the same or different; is that fair? A: That is—that is correct.
Another expert, Dr. Murray, also testified:
Q: [T]his has been discussed already with the jury, but can you define the term coincidence? A: This computer was programmed so that if there were two devices getting the same signal source—because they’re two devices, it won’t be the exact same image, but they’ll overlap, and the machine’s computer software knows to alert the person looking at it that you have one patient with two devices. Now, that could be the mother with a thing on her finger called a pulse oximeter and the ultrasound slipped and its monitoring her aortic pulsations . . . and then it will say coincidence. And the machine is programmed to analyze that and to alert the care providers, and when it prints electronically, we get to see the alarms, but on the unit you’ll hear a sound and a flashing of the machine. Q: Now would be a good time to talk about the machine itself. Are there situations, based upon your experience as a— labor and delivery nurse and someone who teaches nurses, does the fetal heart rate monitor always monitor just the baby? A: No, and that’s one of the limitations we call it, or problems. That’s why you really have to know who’s who. . . . Because if you monitor the mother instead of the baby, you don’t know what the baby’s trying to tell you. .... Q: What is the way that a nurse can determine maternal heart rate, if there’s no pulse oximeter on? A: There are multiple ways. One is to palpate a pulse, but we can’t compare that image to the fetal image. Another way is to plug in the twin ultrasound, because there are two devices, and use her like a twin and put it on her heart. Then you can continuously monitor her and the baby at the same time, see if they’re the same or different. Those are two ways. .... Q: [We’re] now at about 8:20 in the morning or so. What did you see? A: So [the fetal heart monitor] continued to print out 8
mom’s rate, and we don’t know what’s happening with the baby at this time.
Both experts testified it would have been safer for the baby and given a clearer
heart rate to use a pulse oximeter or fetal scalp electrode. We find the district
court did not abuse its discretion by finding parts of Dr. Schifrin’s testimony were
cumulative.
b. New Issues
The defendants claim Dr. Schifrin’s testimony regarding his technical
knowledge of the machine and the discussion of using an echocardiogram
instead of a pulse oximeter constituted new issues and therefore was not proper
rebuttal evidence. Rebuttal evidence is generally limited to issues introduced by
the opposing party, and should not introduce new issues. See 75 Am.Jur.2d
Trial § 372, at 571–72 (1991). The plaintiff claims the defendants had presented
expert testimony regarding the technical abilities of the machine, specifically that
there was no need to use a second heart rate monitor. The plaintiff additionally
noted the machine itself had been identified as an exhibit and entered into
evidence.
The machine itself was introduced into evidence, but no experts had
discussed the development of the machine. Additionally, both the plaintiff’s and
the defendants’ experts had discussed monitoring the mother’s heart rate with a
pulse oximeter but no expert advocated the use of an echocardiogram or stated it
was more effective than the pulse oximeter. We agree with the district court, Dr.
Schifrin’s testimony regarding his work developing the heart monitoring 9
technology and the use of an echocardiogram constituted new issues and were
not proper rebuttal evidence.
c. Exhibit 145
The plaintiff attempted to enter exhibit 145, a manual for a fetal heart
monitor, both in his case in chief as well as during an offer of proof. Exhibit 145
was ruled to be hearsay during the case in chief. After the offer of proof, the
district court stated its opinion “some of the proffered testimony is an effort to
introduce Exhibit 145 or evidence from the pages of 145 in rebuttal, when the
Plaintiff was unable to do so during the case in chief.” Exhibit 145 was
inadmissible as hearsay, and therefore, the district court properly excluded it as
rebuttal evidence.
IV. New Trial
The plaintiff finally claims the district court erred by refusing to grant a new
trial after Dr. Calderwood made a statement regarding insurance and describing
the trial as “torture.” The defendants claim the plaintiff did not preserve error on
the issue of a new trial as he did not object to the statement during trial and only
after a defense verdict was returned did they do so.
“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily
be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on
appeal.” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Schulte, 843 N.W.2d 876, 883 (Iowa 2014)
(citation omitted). Issues must also be raised “with sufficient specificity to alert
the court to the claimed error.” See Thomas A. Mayes & Anuradha
Vaitheswaran, Error Preservation in Civil Appeals in Iowa: Perspectives on
Present Practice, 55 Drake L. Rev. 39, 52 (2006). 10
During redirect examination Dr. Calderwood stated “This trial is pretty
much torture. If—it would have been so much easier just to tell my insurance
company, just pay and let me get on with my life than sit here and do this.” The
plaintiff claims these statements were an attempt to evoke sympathy from the
jury and were unfairly prejudicial as they enhanced Dr. Calderwood’s credibility
and sought to convince the jury he was willing to settle if he believed himself at
fault. The plaintiff did not object. The plaintiff claims he was not required to
object as a prior motion in limine controlled.
[W]here a motion in limine is resolved in such a way it is beyond question whether or not the challenged evidence will be admitted during trial, there is no reason to voice objection at such time during trial. In such a situation, the decision on the motion has the effect of a ruling.
State v. Miller, 229 N.W.2d 762, 768 (Iowa 1975).
However, the district court specifically stated, “I want to make it clear that
every limine ruling is only preliminary and I simply don’t have a good enough
record to be able to make a good call on any of those issues that were raised.”
The district court made its holding clear later in the trial saying, “Counsel, while
we’re outside the presence of the prospective jurors, I just want to make
something clear, again with respect to the orders that I’ve issued in limine, that
those are only preliminary orders made in the context of a limited record.”
Therefore, the plaintiff was required to object to the statements regarding
insurance he believed to be covered by a motion in limine in order to preserve
error.
Plaintiff’s counsel asked for, and received, an order in limine after Dr.
Calderwood’s statements forbidding the defendants from mentioning, “Dr. 11
Calderwood testified that if he thought he was culpable or responsible for the
injuries of [V.P.] he would have settled the case or referred the case to his
insurance company urging settlement.” However, while arguing for the motion in
limine plaintiff’s counsel stated, “I think it's fair game to talk about the fact that he
became emotional and that he complained that going through the trial was like
torture.” The district court’s order granting the motion in limine only addressed
the issue of settlement and did not prevent either party from discussing Dr.
Calderwood’s emotional response. The plaintiff specifically asked the district
court to be allowed to discuss that portion of testimony and should not now be
allowed to argue it was prejudicial. We find error was not preserved on the issue
of the motion for new trial.
AFFIRMED.