On January 18, 2011, Pamela began seeing Leah Steffensmeier, a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, for her prenatal care at the Fort Madison Community Hospital (FMCH). John Paiva, another radiologist at that clinic, reviewed and signed the report. Recommend follow-up to document normal appearance.2) Single, live intrauterine pregnancy consistent with 22 weeks 3 days by today's scan.3) Slightly low head circumference to abnormal circumference ratio without definite etiology. On April 25, approximately twenty-two weeks into her pregnancy, Pamela underwent an ultrasound at FMCH to assess fetal growth. Pil Kang, a radiologist employed by Davis Radiology, P. Willoughby of Gershon, Willoughby, Getz & Smith, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, Darwin Bünger of Crowley, Bünger & Prill, Burlington, for appellants. The district court granted the medical defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Iowa has not recognized “wrongful birth” as a cause of action. Jeremy and Pamela share physical custody of their children, including Z. On May 27, 2015, the district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
We reverse the district court's summary judgment and remand the case to allow the parents' wrongful-birth claims to proceed consistent with this opinion. Pamela Plowman and Jeremy Plowman were married with two children, ages four and three, when Pamela became pregnant with their third child, Z. At the time, Pamela was employed at a retirement community working as a cook's assistant. displayed head abnormalities and recommended follow-up. Specifically, the report noted,1) Suboptimal visualization of the head structure with cavum septum pellucidum not well seen. Kang took three measurements of the head circumference. P.'s head was abnormally small, less than the third-to-sixth percentile for his development. Pamela was never informed “that the radiologist had found any abnormalities, or that the ultrasound was in any way abnormal.” No further testing was done to follow up on the ultrasound results as recommended in the report. P.'s pediatrician recommended Pamela see a specialist in Iowa City, Iowa, for Z. “Speculation is not sufficient to generate a genuine issue of fact.” Id. We also note, Because resolution of issues of negligence and proximate cause turns on the reasonableness of the acts and conduct of the parties under all the facts and circumstances, actions for malpractice “are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication.”Campbell v. 821, 824–28 (differentiating wrongful-pregnancy and wrongful-birth claims) [hereinafter Strasser]. The injury to the parents results from the loss of the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to avoid or terminate the pregnancy. “Two developments help explain the trend toward judicial acceptance of wrongful birth actions.” Smith v.