Feedback

Charise Bailey And Gary D Lass V Jamie Rebecca Grimes

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 24-0740
                               Filed July 23, 2025


CHARISE BAILEY and GARY D. LASS,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

JAMIE REBECCA GRIMES,
     Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________


       Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Angela L. Doyle,

Judge.



       The plaintiffs appeal the judgment entered for the defendant on claims for

damages arising from a motor vehicle collision. AFFIRMED.



       Stephen J. Banks of Banks Law Firm, P.C., Waukee, for appellants.

       William H. Larson and Zachary D. Clausen of Klass Law Firm, L.L.P., Sioux

City, for appellee.



       Considered without oral argument by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and

Chicchelly, JJ.
                                          2


CHICCHELLY, Judge.

       Plaintiffs Charise Bailey and Gary Lass appeal the judgment entered for

defendant Jamie Grimes on their claims for damages arising from a motor vehicle

collision. They challenge the ruling limiting the testimony of their primary care

physicians (PCPs).     Because the plaintiffs failed to disclose the information

required in the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure in order for their PCPs to testify as

expert witnesses, we affirm.

       Bailey was driving a vehicle with Lass in the front-passenger seat when they

were rear ended by Grimes while waiting at a median to turn left onto the

northbound lane of Highway 69. As a result, Bailey and Lass sued Grimes to

recover monetary damages. Because Grimes admits liability, the only question for

the jury was whether Bailey and Lass were injured in the accident and, if so, the

amount of their damages.

       Bailey and Grimes designated a chiropractor as an expert witness. They

never designated any other expert medical witnesses. But two weeks before trial

was scheduled to begin, they listed their PCPs as witnesses. Because neither was

designated as an expert, Grimes moved to limit their testimony. Grimes also

complained that the plaintiffs never disclosed the facts and opinions to which the

PCPs were expected to testify. After a hearing, the district court limited the PCPs

to testifying as lay witnesses by recounting information in Bailey’s and Lass’s

medical records. The court did not allow the PCPs to offer opinion testimony about

the plaintiffs’ diagnoses, cause of injuries, or future medical treatment.
                                           3


       After a trial, the jury found that Grimes was not a legal cause of damage to

either Bailey or Lass. Accordingly, the court entered judgment for Grimes. Bailey

and Lass appeal.

       We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Kindig v. Newman,

966 N.W.2d 310, 317 (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). We reverse for an abuse of discretion

if the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or clearly unreasonable. Id. We review

the district court’s interpretation of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure for correction

of errors at law. McGrew v. Otoadese, 969 N.W.2d 311, 319 (Iowa 2022).

       Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500 identifies the parties’ duties to disclose

information about any witnesses that may present evidence at trial. There are

additional disclosures required for any parties who may present evidence as expert

witnesses. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.500(2)(a). When a party retains a witness to

provide expert testimony, disclosure of their identity must come with a written

report prepared by that expert. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.500(2)(b).

              If an expert witness is not required to submit a written report,
       the party must still provide a disclosure pursuant to subsection (c).
       This disclosure is less comprehensive than a written report. It only
       needs to (1) state the subject matter on which the witness is
       expected to present evidence under Iowa Rules of Evidence 5.702,
       5.703, or 5.705 and (2) provide a summary of the facts and opinions
       to which the witness is expected to testify.

McGrew, 969 N.W.2d at 323 (cleaned up); accord Mengwasser v. Comito, 970

N.W.2d 875, 881–82 (Iowa 2022) (stating that rule 1.500(2)(c) “fills the disclosure

gap as to experts who do not have to provide rule 1.500(2)(b) reports”). Unless

otherwise stated, expert disclosures are due “[n]o later than 90 days before the

date set for trial.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.500(2)(d)(1).
                                           4


       Because Bailey and Lass did not retain their PCPs for litigation, they were

not required to disclose expert witness reports under rule 1.500(2)(b). But if they

intended their PCPs to give expert witness opinion testimony, they had to make

the disclosures required under rule 1.500(2)(c). See Mengwasser, 970 N.W.2d at

882 (noting that treating chiropractor who had not been retained for litigation “did

not have to provide a rule 1.500(2)(b) report, although he did have to provide a

rule 1.500(2)(c) disclosure.”). They did not. Because Bailey and Lass failed to

make those disclosures, the district court properly exercised its discretion by

limiting the PCPs testimony at trial to that of lay witnesses. See McGrew, 969

N.W.2d at 324 (“Although the summary of facts and opinions under

rule 1.500(2)(c)(2) does not require a high level of specificity, clearly there must be

some summary of the actual facts and opinions to which the witness is expected

to testify. A mere list of topics or subject areas does not meet the requirements of

the rule.”); cf. Mengwasser, 970 N.W.2d at 882 (finding that the district court

abused its discretion by excluding treating chiropractor’s opinions on causation

and the nature of the plaintiff’s injury because the plaintiff timely disclosed a letter

from the chiropractor that contained “adequate summaries of his opinions,” which

“complied in substance” with the requirements of rule 1.500(2)(c)).

       AFFIRMED.