IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-0827

Filed February 7, 2018

KIM M. JOHNSON-KRUEGER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

ANGELA J. ALDRICH,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey L. 

Poulson, Judge.

Kim Johnson-Krueger appeals the summary judgment order dismissing her 

medical malpractice claim. AFFIRMED.

Kim M. Johnson-Krueger, Sioux Falls, pro se appellant.

Ellen C. Tolsma of Heidman Law Firm, Sioux City, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ. 
2

VOGEL, Presiding Judge.

Kim Johnson-Krueger sued Angela J. Aldrich, M.D., her gynecologist, 

alleging she engaged in professional negligence by performing an unnecessary 

hysterectomy. Johnson-Krueger designated John David Sabow, M.D., a 

neurologist, as an expert witness in her medical malpractice suit and attempted to 

designate Kevin W. Hamburger, M.D., an expert witness due to his prior evaluation

of Johnson-Krueger. But when deposed, Dr. Hamburger said Johnson-Krueger 

had not hired him as an expert witness, he declined to testify as to the standard of 

care in this case, and would only testify as to his care and treatment.

Dr. Aldrich moved for summary judgment, alleging Johnson-Krueger could 

not establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice because she did not 

designate an expert who could testify to the appropriate standard of care. 

Johnson-Krueger resisted, asserting Dr. Sabow’s criticisms of Dr. Aldrich’s work 

were valid and Dr. Hamburger’s inconsistent diagnosis, compared to Dr. Aldrich’s, 

is enough to prove causation. The district court granted summary judgment, 

finding:

[T]he deadline for designating expert witnesses has passed.

Dr. Sabow is a neurologist with no specialized knowledge qualifying 

him to give a causation opinion as to medical standards of care of an 

obstetrician/gynecologist. Similarly, the mere fact that Dr. 

Hamburger arrived at a different diagnosis does not by itself establish 

expert testimony as to a breach of standard of care.

Although no motion to exclude the witnesses’ testimony has 

been filed, the Court finds that both witnesses would be disqualified 

from testifying as to causation. Due to this shortcoming, defendant 

has established that plaintiff’s proof will be deficient as to the 

causation element of the plaintiff’s case. As the plaintiff will not be 

able to establish this element, the plaintiff’s case fails as a matter of 

law.
3

On appeal, Johnson-Krueger asserts the district court abused its discretion 

in granting Dr. Aldrich’s motion for summary judgment because Dr. Sabow’s and 

Dr. Hamburger’s opinions create a question of fact that should be sent to the jury.1

To establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice, Johnson-Krueger

must submit evidence that shows: (1) the applicable standard of care, (2) a breach 

of the standard of care, and (3) a causal relationship between the breach and the 

harm the plaintiff allegedly experienced. See Peppmeier v. Murphy, 708 N.W.2d 

57, 61–62 (Iowa 2005). Generally, a plaintiff must prove each element through 

expert testimony. Phillips v. Covenant Clinic, 625 N.W.2d 714, 718 (Iowa 2001).2

A person need not be licensed in a particular area, or a specialist in a 

particular field, to offer expert medical opinion. Hutchison v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. 

Co., 514 N.W.2d 882, 886 (Iowa 1994). “It is not enough, however, that a witness 

be generally qualified in a field of expertise; the witness must also be qualified to 

answer the particular question propounded.” Tappe v. Iowa Methodist Med. Ctr., 

477 N.W.2d 396, 402 (Iowa 1991). Here, Johnson-Krueger attempts to use Dr. 

Sabow’s expert opinion, as a neurologist, to show the hysterectomy was 

unnecessary. The problem is Dr. Sabow has no experience in gynecology, is not 

an expert on how to perform a hysterectomy, and agrees a gynecologist has more 

knowledge about whether a hysterectomy is needed than would a neurologist. 

 

1 Our review is for correction of errors at law. Seneca Waste Sols., Inc. v. Sheaffer Mfg. 

Co., 791 N.W.2d 407, 410–11 (Iowa 2010).

2

Iowa is committed to a liberal rule of admission of expert testimony; Iowa Rule of 

Evidence 5.702 provides:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of 

fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness 

qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or 

education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
4

Because Dr. Sabow is not qualified to answer the question of whether Dr. Aldrich 

breached the standard of care, we agree with the district court that his testimony 

cannot be used to prove the causation element of Johnson-Krueger’s case.

Likewise, Dr. Hamburger was Johnson-Krueger’s initial physician; however

he only performed one evaluation, which returned normal results. At the time of 

the evaluation, Dr. Hamburger did not feel Johnson-Krueger’s problem was 

gynecological, but since she experienced pain, he recommended that she seek 

additional care. At his deposition, he declined to opine on whether Dr. Aldrich 

breached the standard of care or to act as an expert witness, and said it was 

possible Johnson-Krueger’s condition worsened to the point where she needed 

further gynecological treatment after his one-and-only evaluation. Further, there 

is no record Dr. Hamburger ever opined to the standard of care, and there was no 

motion compelling him to do so. We agree with the district court that his deposition 

testimony does not establish expert testimony as to a breach of the standard of 

care.

Because Johnson-Krueger is unable to produce expert testimony that Dr. 

Aldrich breached the standard of care, we agree with the district court that she 

failed to generate a jury question on her professional negligence claims. 

AFFIRMED.