Opinion ID: 1345881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proceedings Following Discovery.

Text: Following discovery, Murphy filed a motion for summary judgment. In the motion, he contended that the only expert Peppmeier designated did not have an opinion and would not testify at trial that Murphy breached the standard of care in performing the surgeries. Murphy further contended that the extrajudicial statements Peppmeier relied on were insufficient for the expert opinion necessary for a medical malpractice case. Murphy concluded that, because Peppmeier had no expert, she could not establish her medical malpractice action, and for that reason he was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Heartland joined in Murphy's motion for summary judgment, contending that because Murphy was entitled to summary judgment, Peppmeier's action against it, which was based on respondeat superior, must likewise fail. Following a hearing, the district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that Cherny's July 3, 2001 statements did not, as a matter of law, establish negligence. The court reasoned that such extrajudicial statements were insufficient to substitute for expert testimony because they did not establish the applicable standard of care, a necessary and essential element of Peppmeier's prima facie case required under Iowa law. The court further reasoned that because the extrajudicial statements were insufficient to substitute for expert testimony as a matter of law, Peppmeier's claim against Heartland could not proceed. Peppmeier appealed, and we transferred the case to the court of appeals. That court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The court of appeals held that Cherny's July 3, 2001 statements were sufficient to allow a jury to infer that Murphy breached the standard of care. However, pursuant to Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.801( d )(2), the court concluded the statements were not admissible against Murphy. As for Heartland, the court of appeals held Cherny's statements were admissible against Heartland, which, the court stated, may be vicariously liable for Murphy's actions. The court further held that as an agent of Heartland, Cherny's statements were admissible against it under rule 5.801( d )(2)(D), and for that reason the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Heartland. Heartland filed an application for further review, which we granted.