« Update on Mileage Rate in Iowa Workers' Compensation Cases |
Main Blog Page
| Return to Work Issues in the Iowa Workers' Compensation System »
On December 12, 2007, the Iowa Court of Appeals filed a decision in Wade v. Grunden and K & P Enterp., Ltd. In that case, a personal injury plaintiff appealed from a district court order precluding the admission of evidence or claims for certain damages.
Wade filed suit against the defendants for personal injuries resutling from a car accident. As per typical protocol, written discovery requests were served upon Plaintiff. Plaintiff responded to that discovery but did not provide a complete response outlining the total and types of damages being requested.
During the course of discovery, defense counsel requested supplemental discovery responses at least twice in writing. No supplemental responses were forthcoming. Nor does it appear from the case that a Motion to Compel was filed by Defendants. Instead, Defendants filed a Motion in Limine before trial, seeking to exclude and preclude recovery of any damages not specifically outlined in Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories. The trial judge sustained the Motion in Limine and precluded introduction or claims for any damages other than past medical expenses.
Although a fairly harsh sanction and result, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court judge's ruling. Discovery issues and sanctions for failure to supplement discovery are issues within the trial court's discretion and are not likely to be set aside.
The morale of the story: Be nice to trial judges and be sure to supplement those discovery requests!
Posted by William H. Grell on December 13, 2007 8:51 AM
|
Permalink
