by | Iowa Capital Dispatch
Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, a faith-based health care provider, is arguing in a medical malpractice case that the loss of an unborn child does not equate to the death of a “person” for the purpose of calculating damage awards.
In Iowa, court-ordered awards for noneconomic losses stemming from medical malpractice are capped at $250,000, except in cases that entail the “loss or impairment of mind or body.”
Attorneys for the CHI and MercyOne hospital are arguing the cap on damages still applies in cases where the “loss” is that of a fetus or unborn child.
CHI’s status as a nonprofit, tax-exempt entity is based on its stated mission of providing health services “in the spirit of the gospel.” The ethics guidelines it approved in 2018 state that the corporation is committed to “respect the sacredness of every human life from the moment of conception until death.”
The lawsuit in which CHI is currently embroiled involves the treatment provided to Miranda Anderson of Poweshiek County. Anderson was 34 weeks pregnant when, on April 13, 2021, she arrived at Pella Regional Health Center for evaluation due to elevated blood pressure, headaches and edema.
Citing concerns that she was experiencing preeclampsia — a condition that can lead to serious complications for both mother and baby and may require early delivery — Anderson was transferred to MercyOne’s Obstetrics Emergency Unit via ambulance.
According to the lawsuit later filed by Anderson and her husband, Landen, Miranda Anderson was discharged after two days of monitoring and testing. After further evaluations over the course of the next several days, she was again discharged to her home — until, during an April 21 evaluation, her doctor was unable to detect any fetal heartbeat. The next day, she underwent a cesarean delivery of a nonviable baby girl, Eloise.
The Andersons’ lawsuit seeks damages for negligence, alleging CHI, MercyOne and its physicians failed to recommend early delivery of the baby while it was still viable and Anderson showed evidence of preeclampsia. The defendants have denied any wrongdoing.
Citing the state’s $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in malpractice cases — a cap that was approved by state legislators in 2017 — CHI and MercyOne are arguing that while the cap on damages includes an exemption for cases that entail the “loss or impairment of mind or body,” that exemption should not apply to a case where a fetus or unborn child is lost.
They argue the Iowa Legislature did not intend for the loss of a baby prior to delivery to be included within the exemption and that Anderson’s lawyers are attempting “to put words in the Legislature’s mouth … There is no case law, and plaintiffs cite to none, finding ‘loss of pregnancy’ is a ‘loss or impairment of a bodily function.’”
As evidence of this, they cite the fact that in 2023 — two years after the Anderson pregnancy — state lawmakers explicitly added “loss of pregnancy” to the exemption on the cap for damages. Attorneys for Anderson argue the 2023 change was enacted merely to clarify the scope of the 2017 statute, not to expand the exemption on the caps for damages.
In recent court filings, attorneys for CHI and MercyOne argue that “finding an unborn child to be a ‘person’ would lead to serious implications in other areas of the law.” They also argue the Andersons’ unborn child should not be considered a “patient” for purposes of calculating damages.
“There is no statute or binding case law finding an unborn child to be a ‘patient’ under the law,” attorneys for the hospital have told the court, citing an Iowa Supreme Court ruling in a 1971 case that held “there can be no recovery (of damages) on behalf of, or for, a nonexistent person.”
As part of their case, attorneys for CHI and MercyOne also argue that the Iowa Legislature’s decision to cap noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases was motivated by a desire to “reduce the size of medical malpractice verdicts to increase the affordability and availability of medical care and protect the public treasury.”
The hospital is now seeking a court order affirming the Andersons’ recovery for any noneconomic damages that might be awarded shall be limited to $250,000 under the cap approved by legislators in 2017. A hearing on that issue is expected later this month, while the case itself is scheduled for trial on May 12, 2025.
A spokesperson for MercyOne stated Wednesday that the hospital does not comment on pending litigation.