Edward P. Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., an Iowa Corporation, Paul J. Eastman, Tauhni T. Hunt, and Angela J. Aldrich ( 2014 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 13–1372
Filed May 9, 2014
EDWARD P. HAGEN,
Appellee,
vs.
SIOUXLAND OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, P.C., an Iowa
Corporation, PAUL J. EASTMAN, TAUHNI T. HUNT, and ANGELA J.
ALDRICH,
Appellants.
Certified questions of law from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa, Mark W. Bennett, Judge.
Certified questions from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa concerning a claim for wrongful discharge from
employment in violation of public policy. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
DECLINED.
Jeff W. Wright and Joel D. Vos of Heidman Law Firm, L.L.P.,
Sioux City, for appellants.
Stanley E. Munger and Jay E. Denne of Munger, Reinschmidt &
Denne, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellee.
2
PER CURIAM.
The Federal District Court for the Northern District of Iowa
certified three questions to this court. The questions are as follows:
Certified Question 1: Does Iowa law recognize any of the
following conduct as protected conduct on which a doctor-
employee can base a claim for wrongful discharge in
violation of Iowa public policy?:
(a) A doctor reporting, stating an intention to report,
or stating that he might report, to a hospital, conduct
of nurses that the doctor believed may have involved
wrongful acts or omissions;
(b) A doctor disclosing to a patient or a patient’s
family that the patient may have been the victim of
negligent care or malpractice; or
(c) A doctor consulting with an attorney, stating an
intention to consult with an attorney, or stating that
he might consult with an attorney, about whether
another doctor or nurses had committed wrongful acts
or omissions that the doctor should report to the Iowa
Board of Medicine or a hospital.
Certified Question 2: Does Iowa law allow a contractual
employee to bring a claim for wrongful discharge in violation
of Iowa public policy, or is the tort available only to at-will
employees?
Certified Question 3: Under Iowa law, is an employer’s lack
of an “overriding business justification” for firing an
employee an independent element of a wrongful discharge
claim, or is that element implicit in the element requiring
that an employee’s protected activity be the determining
factor in the employer’s decision to fire the employee?
After reviewing the record and considering the arguments
presented, the justices are equally divided on the first certified question.
Cady, C.J., Wiggins and Appel, JJ., would answer the first certified
question in the affirmative. Waterman, Mansfield, and Zager, JJ., would
answer the first certified question in the negative. Hecht, J., takes no
part. Because a negative answer to the first question would be
dispositive of the case, we will not answer the second or third certified
question when the court is equally divided on the answer to the first
3
certified question. Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am. v. Estate of Corrado, 838
N.W.2d 640, 647 (Iowa 2013).
Therefore, we return the questions to the Federal District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa without answers.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS DECLINED.
This opinion shall not be published.