medical malpractice claim in Iowa

2007See DeMoss v. Hamilton, 644 N.W.2d 302, 306 (Iowa 2002) (stating “in a medical malpractice action, the defense of contributory negligence is inapplicable when a patient’s conduct provides the occasion for medical attention, care, or treatment which later is the subject of a medical malpractice claim or when the patient’s conduct contributes to an illness or condition for which the patient seeks the *636 medical attention, care, or treatment on which a subsequent medical malpractice claim is based”).

2007See DeMoss v. Hamilton, 644 N.W.2d 302, 306 (Iowa 2002) (stating “in a medical malpractice action, the defense of contributory negligence is inapplicable when a patient’s conduct provides the occasion for medical attention, care, or treatment which later is the subject of a medical malpractice claim or when the patient’s conduct contributes to an illness or condition for which the patient seeks the medical attention, care, or treatment on which a subsequent medical malpractice claim is based”).

2026In Rathje v. Mercy Hospital, which wasn’t a wrongful-death case, we held that the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice claim under § 614.1(9) is triggered upon “knowledge of both the injury and its cause in fact.” 745 N.W.2d 443, 461 (Iowa 2008) (emphasis added).

2026In Rathje v. Mercy Hospital, which wasn’t a wrongful-death case, we held that the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice claim under § 614.1(9) is triggered upon “knowledge of both the injury and its cause in fact.” 745 N.W.2d 443, 461 (Iowa 2008) (emphasis added).

2023See Venard, 524 N.W.2d at 167– 68.

2023See Venard, 524 N.W.2d at 167– 68.

2026Later, in Estate of Gray v. Baldi, we briefly raised the question whether the discovery rule in Rathje applied to wrongful-death cases but ultimately concluded that we “need not decide” the question under the facts presented. 880 N.W.2d 451, 459 (Iowa 2016).

2026Later, in Estate of Gray v. Baldi, we briefly raised the question whether the discovery rule in Rathje applied to wrongful-death cases but ultimately concluded that we “need not decide” the question under the facts presented. 880 N.W.2d 451, 459 (Iowa 2016).

2002Jensen v. Archbishop Bergan Mercy Hosp., 236 Neb. 1 , 459 N.W.2d 178, 186-87 (1990) (patient’s failure to heed doctor’s advice to lose weight may have caused pulmonary embolism but is irrelevant to claim that doctor later negligently treated the condition); accord Matthews v. Williford, 318 So.2d 480, 483 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1975) (patient’s failure to follow advice to quit smoking following heart attack ten years earlier too remote to support comparative fault instruction); Van Vacter v. Hierholzer, 865 S.W.2d 355, 360 (Mo.Ct.

2002Jensen v. Archbishop Bergan Mercy Hosp., 236 Neb. 1 , 459 N.W.2d 178, 186-87 (1990) (patient’s failure to heed doctor’s advice to lose weight may have caused pulmonary embolism but is irrelevant to claim that doctor later negligently treated the condition); accord Matthews v. Williford, 318 So.2d 480, 483 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1975) (patient’s failure to follow advice to quit smoking following heart attack ten years earlier too remote to support comparative fault instruction); Van Vacter v. Hierholzer, 865 S.W.2d 355, 360 (Mo.Ct.

2002Jensen v. Archbishop Bergan Mercy Hosp., 236 Neb. 1 , 459 N.W.2d 178, 186-87 (1990) (patient’s failure to heed doctor’s advice to lose weight may have caused pulmonary embolism but is irrelevant to claim that doctor later negligently treated the condition); accord Matthews v. Williford, 318 So.2d 480, 483 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1975) (patient’s failure to follow advice to quit smoking following heart attack ten years earlier too remote to support comparative fault instruction); Van Vacter v. Hierholzer, 865 S.W.2d 355, 360 (Mo.Ct.

2002Jensen v. Archbishop Bergan Mercy Hosp., 236 Neb. 1 , 459 N.W.2d 178, 186-87 (1990) (patient’s failure to heed doctor’s advice to lose weight may have caused pulmonary embolism but is irrelevant to claim that doctor later negligently treated the condition); accord Matthews v. Williford, 318 So.2d 480, 483 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1975) (patient’s failure to follow advice to quit smoking following heart attack ten years earlier too remote to support comparative fault instruction); Van Vacter v. Hierholzer, 865 S.W.2d 355, 360 (Mo.Ct.

1996See Speed, 251 N.W.2d at 218-19 (plaintiff pursued a medical malpractice claim for compensatory and punitive damages against university of Iowa physicians in their individual capacities after filing a tort claim against the State under Iowa Code chapter 25A (1971)).

1976Dickinson v. Mailliard, 175 N.W.2d 588, 590 (Iowa 1970).