Jenna Sondag v. Orthopaedic Speciatists, P.C. and John Hoffman, M.D.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-2113
Filed January 23, 2025

JENNA SONDAG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS, P.C. and JOHN HOFFMAN, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stewart P. Werling,

Judge.

A plaintiff appeals the district court’s dismissal of her medical-negligence

action following the decertification of her expert witness. AFFIRMED.

Roxanne Conlin and Devin Kelly of Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C.,

Des Moines, for appellant.

Ian J. Russell and Alexander C. Barnett of Lane & Waterman LLP,

Davenport, for appellees.

Heard by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
2

BULLER, Judge.

Jenna Sondag appeals the district court’s dismissal of her medical

negligence action against Orthopaedic Specialists, P.C. and John Hoffman, M.D.

(collectively Hoffman) following the decertification of her expert witness. We affirm,

discerning no abuse of discretion in the district court revisiting its earlier ruling or

finding there was no good cause for an extension of time.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Sondag filed a lawsuit in January 2019 alleging medical negligence during

a hip surgery. Iowa Code section 668.11 (2019) required Sondag to certify her

expert witnesses—revealing their identity, qualifications, and subject matter of

testimony—within 180 days of the defendants’ answer, a deadline that ran in July

2019. And the parties’ trial scheduling order required Sondag to provide any

further Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(2)(b) expert disclosures by August

2019. Sondag did not meet these deadlines. Hoffman also served written

discovery requests to identify the experts, their qualifications, and their opinions,

but Sondag failed to timely respond to these too.

Hoffman moved for summary judgment in September, arguing Sondag’s

lack of compliance with the expert-certification deadlines prohibited Sondag from

presenting expert testimony at trial, which meant she could not generate a fact

question on the standard of care, alleged breach, or causation. Sondag argued

there was good cause under section 668.11 to extend the deadlines due to

“bureaucratic delay,” an error in docketing software that incorrectly calendared the

deadlines, a prior-scheduled six-week jury trial around the same time, the

unexpected illness of counsel, and because Hoffman would not be prejudiced by
3

an extension. Sondag also alleged the delay was in part due to unavailability of

the surgeon who performed Sondag’s remedial surgery, though Sondag’s

attorneys also said they reached out well before the deadline and found an

alternative expert witness in March 2019.

In November, the district court denied Hoffman’s motion for summary

judgment and granted Sondag an extension of time to designate an expert. The

district court credited Sondag’s explanation for missing the deadlines as legitimate,

and it determined the delay was minimal because the extension was granted only

a few months past the relevant deadlines. The court found the prejudice to

Hoffman was “minimal at most.” And, because Hoffman’s counsel sent discovery

requests on the issue but didn’t warn of the approaching deadlines, the court found

defense counsel’s actions weighed neither for nor against an extension of time.

Sondag complied with the extended deadlines: she certified expert

witnesses in December 2019 and provided disclosures in January 2020.

In October 2023, a week before trial was to begin, Hoffman moved in limine

to exclude Sondag’s expert, arguing the district court previously erred in finding

good cause to extend the deadlines. Relying on recent unpublished decisions from

our court, the district court overruled its prior determination and decertified

Sondag’s expert. The case was then dismissed pursuant to section 668.11.

Sondag moved to reconsider the dismissal, which the district court denied.

Sondag appeals.

II. Standard of Review

We review the district court’s good-cause determination and extension of

expert-disclosure deadlines for abuse of discretion. McGrew v. Otoadese, 969
4

N.W.2d 311, 319 (Iowa 2022); Hantsbarger v. Coffin, 501 N.W.2d 501, 505

(Iowa 1993). “Trial courts have broad discretion in ruling on whether to extend the

time allowed for parties to designate expert witnesses under rule 668.11, and the

exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless it was exercised on clearly

untenable grounds or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Hill v. McCartney, 590

N.W.2d 52, 54–55 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (citing Donovan v. State, 445 N.W.2d

763, 766 (Iowa 1989)).

III. Discussion

On appeal, Sondag advances two arguments: that the district court should

not have revisited its earlier ruling and that the court abused its discretion in finding

there was not good cause warranting an extension of time. We address each in

turn.

A. Revisiting the Earlier Ruling

Sondag first argues Hoffman’s motion to decertify her expert 1441 days

after the initial good-cause determination “stretch[es] the bounds of what can be

considered under a motion in limine” and functioned as an untimely motion to

reconsider under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904. Regardless of label, we

conclude the district court was permitted to correct an earlier ruling it believed was

erroneous.

“A trial judge may usually correct his or her own rulings or that of another

judge of the same court anytime before final judgment.” Kendall/Hunt Publ’g Co.

v. Rowe, 424 N.W.2d 235, 240 (Iowa 1988). And the court may do so in response

to an untimely pleading or even sua sponte. See Madden v. City of Eldridge, 661

N.W.2d 134, 137 (Iowa 2003) (“The trial court did not err in revisiting the motion to
5

ensure the issues were suitable for a trial on the merits.”). Although we—like the

district court—can recognize that an earlier ruling would have been better, the

convenience of the parties does not outweigh the importance of a legally correct

ruling. See Richman v. Bd. of Supervisors Muscatine Cnty., 42 N.W. 422, 426

(Iowa 1889) (recognizing a court may correct earlier erroneous rulings because

prohibiting such correction would be a “serious impediment to a fair and speedy

disposition of causes”). And we note, as Sondag acknowledges, that the good-

cause question would also come before us after trial and adverse final judgment.

Iowa R. App. P. 6.103(4) (“Error in an interlocutory order is not waived by pleading

over or proceeding to trial.”).

We are sensitive to Sondag’s complaint that Hoffman’s motion was

essentially converted into a renewed motion for summary judgment at the motion

in limine hearing. But “[t]he label attached to a motion is not determinative of its

legal significance; we will look to its content to determine its real nature.” Iowa

Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Lagle, 430 N.W.2d 393, 395 (Iowa 1988). And nothing

about the label of a pleading undermines the case law we’ve cited establishing a

court’s inherent power to correct earlier erroneous rulings, whether in response to

a pleading or on the court’s own motion.

Under this controlling case law, we discern no abuse of discretion by the

district court reconsidering the issue, and we conclude Sondag is owed no relief

regarding the procedure by which the court revisited the good-cause analysis.

B. Good Cause

Sondag next argues that she had good cause for an extension and that the

district court reversing itself on the eve of trial was an abuse of discretion on the
6

merits. The statutory deadline is explicit and requires certification within 180 days

of an answer. Iowa Code § 668.11(1)(a). The Code is similarly clear that the

testimony of an untimely certified expert must be excluded “unless leave for the

expert’s testimony is given by the court for good cause shown.” Id. § 668.11(2).

The supreme court, when interpreting “good cause” in section 668.11, has

applied the definition of good cause from motions to set aside a default judgment,

which requires a

sound, effective, truthful reason, something more than an excuse, a
plea, apology, extenuation, or some justification for the resulting
effect. The movant must show his failure to defend was not due to
his negligence or want of ordinary care or attention, or to his
carelessness or inattention. He must show affirmatively he did intend
to defend and took steps to do so, but because of some
misunderstanding, accident, mistake or excusable neglect failed to
do so. Defaults will not be vacated where the movant has ignored
plain mandates in the rules with ample opportunity to abide by them.

Donovan, 445 N.W.2d at 766 (citation omitted). In deciding good cause, we have

said the district court should consider “the seriousness of the deviation” from

section 668.11’s requirements, “the prejudice to” the opposing party, and the

opposing “counsel’s actions.” Hill, 590 N.W.2d at 55. And the supreme court has

held section 668.11 requires substantial compliance, with the objectives of

“providing certainty about the identity of experts,” “preventing last minute

dismissals when an expert cannot be found,” and “requir[ing] plaintiffs to have their

proof prepared at an early stage in the litigation.” Nedved v. Welch, 585 N.W.2d

238, 240 (Iowa 1998).

As the district court recognized, our recent unpublished decisions have

provided additional guidance on what constitutes good cause under the statute.

See, e.g., Jackson v. Cath. Health Initiatives, Inc., No. 22-1911, 2023 WL 5602863,
7

at *3 n.4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2023); Reyes v. Smith, No. 21-0303, 2022

WL 1656238, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 25, 2022); Stanton v. Knoxville Cmty.

Hosp., Inc., No. 19-1277, 2020 WL 4498884, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2020).

The court in Stanton determined there was no good cause for a delay of “more

than three months” in part because the plaintiff’s belief the deadline was in June

rather than January was not a sound and effective reason. 2020 WL 4498884,

at *5. Reyes drew an arguably harsher line by rejecting a claim that the COVID-19

pandemic caused errors in calendaring deadlines and holding a delay in expert

designation of “sixty-six days is substantial” was enough to warrant finding no good

cause. 2022 WL 1656238, at *2. And in Jackson, we likewise were not persuaded

there was good cause when “the plaintiffs missed their expert witness deadline

under section 668.11 by about three months.” 2023 WL 5602863, at *2.

Sondag tries to distinguish these cases, arguing that they “are drastically

more severe than the deviation in the case at hand.” But we are not persuaded

those cases are so different that the district court here abused its discretion. In

this case, Sondag’s certification deadline was in July 2019, but she did not certify

her expert witness until December 2019—more than four months late. And the

initial deadline for expert witness disclosures was in August 2019, but she did not

file until January 2020—again more than four months late. Against the backdrop

of our recent unpublished decisions, it was not unreasonable for the district court

to conclude Sondag’s “reasoning for the delay in certification” was not a sound and

effective reason when it was based on a calendaring error. We cannot say the

district court abused its discretion here or relied on clearly untenable grounds. See

Hill, 590 N.W.2d at 54–55.
8

As a final observation, we stress the importance of the standard of review

to the outcome in this appeal. The facts supporting Sondag’s untimely certification

might have been sufficient to support either the first determination that there was

good cause for an extension of time or the second determination that there wasn’t

good cause. The district court has substantial discretion in making such a

determination, and we defer to the reasonable exercise of that discretion. 1 But it

is not our role on appeal to decide which of the two rulings was more sound—only

if the appealed ruling reflects an abuse of discretion. Seeing no abuse of

discretion, we must affirm.

IV. Disposition

The district court did not abuse its discretion in revisiting its earlier

good-cause ruling or in finding Sondag failed to demonstrate good cause for an

extension of time to certify its expert witnesses. We affirm decertification and

dismissal.

AFFIRMED.

1 Sondag does not argue in her brief that the district court mistakenly believed it

lacked discretion, and we express no opinion on such a claim. Cf. State v.
Sandifer, 570 N.W.2d 256, 257 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (“A remand for resentencing
is required where a court fails to exercise discretion because it believes it has no
discretion.”). Nor does she ask us to consider whether the motion in limine’s
request to impose the deadlines was impliedly waived by the delay in filing it. Cf.
S.K. by & through Tarbox v. Obstetric & Gynecologic Assocs. of Iowa City &
Coralville, P.C., 13 N.W.3d 546, 554 (Iowa 2024) (majority); id. at 569–72
(Waterman, J., concurring (with three justices joining)). But see Iowa R. App.
P. 6.103(4) (“Error in an interlocutory order is not waived by pleading over or
proceeding to trial.”).