Oswald v. LeGrand

453 N.W.2d 634 (1990)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Oswald v. LeGrand

Iowa Supreme Court
453 N.W.2d 634 (1990)

Facts

Just prior to her five-month pregnancy checkup, Susan Oswald (plaintiff) experienced bleeding and painful cramping. Dr. Larry LeGrand (LeGrand) (defendant) examined Susan and sent her home to rest. Later that day, Susan was taken by ambulance to Mercy Health Center (Mercy) (defendant) for bleeding but was sent home and told to take it easy. The next day, the cramping and bleeding worsened. Susan’s husband, Larry (plaintiff), drove Susan to the Mercy emergency room, where Christopher Clark (defendant) examined Susan and told her she should return home. However, Larry insisted, and Susan was transferred to the labor ward. A ward nurse scolded Susan for coming after being told to rest. Another nurse told Susan that if she miscarried it would not be a baby but a “blob of blood.” The next day, Susan heard Clark yelling outside of her room that he did not want her as a patient and that he was sick of Dr. Smith, Susan’s family physician, “dumping” patients on him. Clark apologized and promised to care for Susan until he left for vacation later that day. Susan began to feel tremendous pain, became hysterical, and insisted that she was about to deliver. After examining Susan and reviewing a sonogram, Clark ordered further monitoring and left before the end of his scheduled duty. Shortly after, Susan delivered her baby. A nursed observed that the baby did not have any heartbeat or respiratory activity, declared the baby stillborn, and placed it on an instrument tray. LeGrand delivered the placenta but did not examine the infant beyond identifying the gender, on the assumption that the baby was stillborn. After Larry felt the infant grasp his finger, the nurse determined that the infant was alive and rushed it to the neonatal care unit, where it died 12 hours later. The Oswalds sued Mercy, Clark, and LeGrand for severe emotional distress from the negligent care of Susan and the infant and from witnessing the negligent treatment of their newborn infant. The trial court dismissed the claims for failure to bring expert testimony. The Oswalds appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Neuman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership