# Shannon and Danny NELSON, Individually, and on Behalf of E.N. F/K/A E.N., a Minor, Appellees, v. Lynn M. LINDAMAN, Lynn M. Lindaman, M.D., P.L.C. D/B/A Lindaman Orthopaedic, and Mercy Medical Center—Des Moines, Appellants

> Supreme Court of Iowa · April 24, 2015 · 867 N.W.2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9880251

## Case

- **Full name:** Amended September 25, 2015 Shannon and Danny Nelson, Individually, and on Behalf of E.E. F/K/A E.N., a Minor v. Lynn M. Lindaman, Lynn M. Lindaman, M.D., P.L.C. D/B/A Lindaman Orthopaedic, and Mercy Medical Center – Des Moines
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** April 24, 2015
- **Citations:** 867 N.W.2d 1; 2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 49
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cady
- **Judges:** Waterman, Cady, Appel, Hecht
- **Cited by:** 95 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9880251

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that “[i]f the legislature wanted to exclude” from a statute particular claims, “it would have said so, as it has in other statutes”
- concluding a statute should be interpreted broadly because if the legislature wanted to limit the statute’s scope, “it would have said so, as it has in other statutes”
- explaining “a key purpose” of statutory immunity “is to avoid costly litigation, and that legislative goal is thwarted when 13 claims subject to immunity proceed to trial”
- applying subjective standard under Iowa statute and citing other jurisdictions that have done so in construing similar statutes
- explaining the burden is on the party seeking summary judgment to show the nonexistence of a factual dispute

## Opinion text

CADY, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result reached by the majority. It is a result that ultimately comes down to the reasonableness of the permissible inferences that would support a finding of the lack of good faith of Dr. Lindaman during the time he assisted in the assessment of child abuse. There is evidence in the record to show Dr. Linda-man participated in good faith, though mistaken in medical fact. On the other hand, the evidence in the record does not support a legitimate inference that Dr. Linda-man was sfeeking to avoid the assessment of child abuse or that he did not express an honest belief. The inferences raised by the Nelsons concerning Dr. Lindaman’s lack of good faith were too speculative to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, summary judgment based on *16 immunity granted under Iowa Code section 232.73 (2009) is appropriate.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9880251. Public record. Not legal advice.