Today the question presented would be something like this:

Should the medical examiner be reporting physicians to the Iowa Board of Medicine concerning standard of care issues? Or, if an Iowa ME sees questionable deaths is it his/her duty to report it to the Iowa Board?

According to a Des Moines Register article wirtten about a libel suit between the Woodbury County Medical Examiner [ME] and a surgeon this ME did just that; he reported to the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners something he questioned and the lawsuit was ‘tossed’ by Judge Reade. But I don’t think that’s completely accurate. I believe the suit is still alive although portions of it have been ruled upon in a way that is adverse to the plaintiff, but favorable to the defendant. The ME reported a doctor for what he thought were standard of care issues. I’ve not completely read the decision but will guess the main issues were immunity from suit.

Okay, I’ve located the opinion and I’ll add this link and add the decision to my site under defamation. The Order is 40 pages long. I can see both sides of this argument. On the one side you have the ME’s role as a government official and medical doctor protecting citizen patients. On the other side you have a doctor spending a considerable amount of money, $200,000, defending himself against the charges. No one will be happy with this controversy.

Here is the Judge's conclusion from page 39 by the Court.

c. Conclusion

The court concludes, as a matter of law, that Dr. Carroll did not act with actual malice in publishing the statements in the Letter. Dr. Reeder puts forth no evidence that Dr. Carroll knew his statements were false. Nor is there “‘sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that [Dr. Carroll] in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.’” Barreca, 683 N.W.2d at 123 (quoting Caveman Adventures, 633 N.W.2d at 762). Because he did not publish the statements with actual malice, Dr. Carroll’s statements in the Letter are qualifiedly privileged. For the same reason, he also is immune from civil liability for the statements pursuant to Iowa Administrative Code r. 653-22.2(2)(f). Accordingly, the court shall grant the Motion to the extent it seeks summary judgment with respect to Dr. Reeder’s libel and false light claims.12

Is this matter concluded? Probably not, the case is probably still alive in the sense that there are other claims/issues to be resolved. Here is why. The plaintiff sued under three different theories of liability: 1. Slander. 2. Libel. 3. False light invasion of privacy. Here is a quote from U.S. Judge Linda Reade’s opinion that wold indicate the case remains active.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims against Defendant Thomas Carroll, M.D., (“Dr. Carroll”) for slander, libel and false light invasion of privacy. On April 6, 2009, Dr. Carroll filed an Answer (docket no. 10), in which he denied the substance of the Complaint and asserted affirmative defenses.

From a practical standpoint parts of the case have been decided, but it appears from the decision there are portions of the claim that have not. I'll keep my eye out for a conclusion. Stay tuned.