$97 Million Award Overturned in Baby Brain Injury Case

The Iowa Supreme Court recently vacated a historic $97 million medical malpractice verdict, previously awarded to the family of Scotty Kromphardt, a child who sustained permanent brain damage during birth. The 2022 verdict was the largest medical malpractice award in Iowa’s history, involving Mercy Hospital Iowa City and Obstetric & Gynecologic Associates of Iowa City and Coralville PC, the clinic where Dr. Jill Goodman practiced. Scotty’s parents, Kathleen and Andy Kromphardt, argued that improper use of a Mityvac obstetrical vacuum and forceps during delivery caused Scotty’s brain injury and skull fractures.

Initially, a Johnson County jury assigned equal responsibility to the hospital and the clinic. However, on appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court found critical flaws in the trial court’s handling of evidence, leading to its decision to order a new trial.

The Trial and Appeal

At trial, the Kromphardts argued that Dr. Goodman’s choice to use a vacuum extractor rather than performing a C-section contributed to Scotty’s injuries. The family presented a "package insert" from the Mityvac vacuum manufacturer that listed contraindications and potential adverse effects as evidence. They asserted that this insert underscored the risks associated with vacuum-assisted delivery, especially following failed forceps attempts.

On appeal, the clinic contended that this insert should not have been allowed as evidence, citing Iowa’s hearsay rules. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the insert’s statements fell under hearsay and thus were inadmissible. Justice David May clarified that the manufacturer's insert was problematic because it conveyed “written statements about when the vacuum should not be used ('contraindications') and what harms could result from its use ('adverse events')” that were not corroborated by direct expert testimony​.

Legal Implications and Hearsay Issue

The crux of the Supreme Court’s decision rested on the hearsay nature of the manufacturer’s insert. According to Iowa's hearsay rule, statements made outside of the trial or hearing are generally inadmissible unless an exception applies. The justices determined that none of these exceptions were relevant in this instance. Allowing the jury to review the insert unfairly influenced its perception of the risks associated with the Mityvac device without expert interpretation to contextualize the listed “adverse events” and “contraindications.”

The Court’s ruling emphasized the importance of presenting risk-related product information within the scope of admissible evidence, particularly in high-stakes medical malpractice cases where nuances in technical or medical standards are pivotal. As Justice May noted, “[t]hose statements fall within the definition of hearsay” and should not have been presented as a substitute for expert analysis​.

The Law Firms Involved

The Kromphardts are represented by attorneys Ryan G. Koopmans of Koopmans Law Group LLC and Matthew Patterson of Beam Legal Team LLC. For the clinic, legal representation is provided by Troy L. Booher and Beth E. Kennedy of Zimmerman Booher, along with Jennifer E. Rinden, Robert D. Houghton, Vincent S. Gies, and Nancy J. Penner of Shuttleworth & Ingersoll PLC.

What’s Next?

With the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision, both parties are preparing for a new trial. For the Kromphardts, this presents an opportunity to reassess their strategy, potentially involving revised expert testimony on the Mityvac device. The retrial will also require a careful approach to presenting evidence within Iowa’s strict hearsay guidelines, potentially shaping future procedural norms in similar medical malpractice cases.

The upcoming trial will serve as a test case for Iowa’s courts regarding admissible evidence in medical malpractice litigation and how such restrictions impact families seeking restitution for catastrophic injuries.