Court Opinion

ID: 9931586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 15:04:53.608076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:25.281053
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

                                 No. 22–1573

            Submitted November 15, 2023—Filed February 9, 2024

ALYSSA PRATT,

      Appellee,

vs.

ADAM B. SMITH, M.D.; ADAM SMITH, M.D., P.C.; and TRI-STATE
SPECIALISTS, L.L.P.,

      Appellants.

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

Judge.

      The defendants in a surgical malpractice case sought interlocutory review

from the district court’s denial of a summary judgment motion. VACATED AND

REMANDED.
      Per curiam.

      Jeff W. Wright and Zack A. Martin of Heidman Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Sioux
City, for appellants.

      Jon Specht of Trial Lawyers for Justice, Decorah, for appellee.
                                         2

PER CURIAM.
      This is one of five related appeals that have come before our court this

term. All five appeals arose from suits brought by injured surgical patients. All

five appeals involved claims against the same three defendants: a former surgeon

named Adam Smith, M.D. (Dr. Smith); a professional corporation named Adam

Smith, M.D., P.C. (Smith P.C.); and Tri-State Specialists, L.L.P. (Tri-State), a

limited liability partnership that does business as a clinic.

      In December, we issued opinions in two of those appeals: Hilts v. Smith,

No. 22–1927, 2023 WL 8853039 (Iowa Dec. 22, 2023), and Hummel v. Smith, 999

N.W.2d 301 (Iowa 2023). Today, we resolve the last three appeals through our

opinion in Jorgensen v. Smith, ___ N.W.3d ___ (Iowa 2024), and two per curiam

opinions in Pratt v. Smith. This is one of the two Pratt opinions.

      This appeal is unusual. It is the second of two interlocutory appeals, both

before our court at the same time, both arising from the same district court case.

The district court case started in August 2019 when Alyssa Pratt filed her

petition against the three defendants mentioned above. In February 2022, the

district court entered an order granting partial summary judgment as to some of

Pratt’s claims, namely, her negligent-retention claims against Smith P.C. and
Tri-State. Pratt filed an application for interlocutory review. In June 2022, we

granted the application, numbered the appeal 22–0403, and stayed the

proceedings in the district court case. (We are resolving appeal 22–0403 through

a separate unpublished opinion also filed today.)

      Then, in August 2022, the district entered an order denying a second

summary judgment motion filed by the defendants. The defendants then sought

interlocutory review of that order. We granted the application and numbered the

appeal 22–1573. This opinion resolves appeal 22–1573.
                                       3

      As mentioned above, our order granting the first interlocutory appeal (22–

0403) stayed proceedings in the district court. Our stay should have halted

proceedings in the district court, including proceedings concerning the second

summary judgment motion. Cf., e.g., Allied Gas & Chem. Co. v. Federated Mut.

Ins., 365 N.W.2d 26, 30 (Iowa 1985) (stay during interlocutory appeal prevented

dismissal under then-rule of civil procedure 215.1). Accordingly, we vacate the

district court’s order addressing the second summary judgment motion.

      VACATED AND REMANDED.
      This opinion shall not be published.