Opinion
No. 11–1358.
2012-08-22
Sharis BAHR–CLAVER, Curtis Claver, and Sharis Bahr–Claver and Curtis Claver As Parents and Next Friends of Carter Claver, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Judy R. WALKER, M.D., Brian Moshier, D.O., and Central Iowa Hospital Corp. d/b/a Blank Children's Hospital, Defendants–Appellees.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge. The Clavers appeal from the denial of their motion for new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the defendants on their medical negligence claim. AFFIRMED. Glenn L. Norris of Hawkins & Norris, P.C., Des Moines, and Steven P. Wandro of Wandro & Associates, Des Moines, for appellants. Thomas A. Finley, Jack D. Hilmes, and Eric G. Hoch of Finley, Alt, Smith, Scharnberg, Craig, Hilmes & Gaffney, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
The Clavers appeal from the denial of their motion for new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the defendants on their medical negligence claim. AFFIRMED.
Glenn L. Norris of Hawkins & Norris, P.C., Des Moines, and Steven P. Wandro of Wandro & Associates, Des Moines, for appellants. Thomas A. Finley, Jack D. Hilmes, and Eric G. Hoch of Finley, Alt, Smith, Scharnberg, Craig, Hilmes & Gaffney, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
Considered by EISENHAUER, C.J., and DOYLE and TABOR, JJ.
DOYLE, J.
The Clavers appeal from the district court's denial of their motion for new trial following an adverse jury verdict in their medical negligence action. They contend the jury verdict in the case failed to administer substantial justice, asserting, among other things, that there were inconsistencies in the defendants' and their experts' testimony and the jury failed to follow the Clavers' experts' “uncontroverted” testimony. We review the court's ruling on a motion for new trial alleging failure to administer substantial justice for an abuse of discretion. Smith v. Haugland, 762 N.W.2d 890, 900 (Iowa Ct.App.2009) ( citing Lehigh Clay Prods., Ltd. v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 512 N.W.2d 541, 544 (Iowa 1994)).
We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record in this case. The district court's opinion identifies and considers all the issues presented, and we approve of the reasons and conclusions in that opinion. Accordingly, we affirm without opinion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.1203(a), (b), and (d).
AFFIRMED.