Iowa Appeals Court Reverses $250,000 Damages Cap in Stillbirth Malpractice Case 

October 20, 2026 by matray

The Iowa Court of Appeals ruled that a trial judge improperly limited the damages recoverable by parents whose baby was stillborn following alleged medical negligence. The appellate court found that a jury should determine whether the case qualifies for exceptions to Iowa’s $250,000 noneconomic damages cap, including death, substantial impairment of bodily function and substantial disfigurement. The court reversed the ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

Case: Anderson v. Posthuma, No. 25-0865, 10/07/2026, published.  

Facts: Miranda Anderson was 34 weeks pregnant on April 13, 2021, when she first showed troubling symptoms with her pregnancy. Anderson saw Dr. Richard Posthuma at Pella Regional Health Center. He diagnosed Anderson with preeclampsia.  

Anderson was in and out of the hospital over the course of the next few days.  

On April 21, 2021, an ultrasound revealed Anderson’s baby no longer had a heartbeat. Anderson underwent emergency cesarean surgery to deliver her stillborn child.  

Procedural history: Anderson and her husband filed suit against Posthuma and PRHC for medical malpractice.   Prior to trial, Posthuma and PRHC filed a joint motion for partial summary judgment arguing that Iowa Code Section 147.136A(2) capped the Andersons’ damages at $250,000.  

The statute limits the total amount recoverable in any civil action against a healthcare provider for noneconomic damages for personal injury, unless the jury determines that there is a substantial or permanent loss or impairment of a bodily function, substantial disfigurement or death.  

A trial judge grated the motion.  

Analysis: The Iowa Court of Appeals noted that under Iowa law, a survival action for wrongful death cannot be brought on behalf of an unborn child, but a parent can bring a loss of consortium claim for an unborn child. The court reasoned the Andersons could sue for the expense and actual loss of services, companionship and society resulting from the in-utero demise of their baby.  

The court further said a reasonable jury could find Section 147.136A(2)’s death exception applied to this case, and the judge erred in finding it did not apply as a matter of law.  

The court said there was sufficient evidence to allow reasonable jury to find that Miranda Anderson’s ability to give birth only through cesarean section because of the defendants’ alleged negligence was a substantial or permanent loss or impairment of bodily function as well, so the erred in finding this exception inapplicable.  

Whether Miranda Anderson’s scar from the cesarean section is a substantial disfigurement also should have been left to a jury, the court said. “While a scar is not substantial disfigurement per se, it can rise to such a level and is for the jury to decide.”  

Disposition: Reversed and remanded.  

To read the court’s decision, click here. 

AMA Calls for Stronger FDA Oversight of Generative AI in Clinical Care

October 20, 2026 by matray

The American Medical Association has called on the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to establish a risk-based regulatory framework for generative artificial intelligence in medicine, emphasizing the need for clinical evidence, ongoing performance monitoring and manufacturer accountability as AI systems assume increasingly complex roles in patient care.

In an Oct. 19 letter to Rick Abramson, MD, director of the FDA’s Digital Health Center of Excellence, the AMA outlined recommendations for evaluating and regulating generative AI-enabled medical devices. The recommendations respond to an FDA discussion paper released Aug. 18 seeking public input on how the agency should oversee the emerging technology.

The AMA urged regulators to balance technological innovation with patient safety, warning that more flexible regulatory approaches must not weaken standards for demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of AI-enabled medical devices.

The organization identified two central principles for FDA oversight: Regulatory flexibility should not compromise patient safety, and physician involvement in evaluating AI technologies should not substitute for manufacturers demonstrating that their products perform safely and reliably.

The AMA recommended that regulatory requirements reflect a device’s intended clinical use, potential for patient harm and performance throughout its operational life. It also called for stronger post-market surveillance to identify problems that may emerge after AI systems enter clinical practice.

Unlike conventional medical software, generative AI systems can produce new content and perform increasingly sophisticated clinical functions, raising questions about how regulators should assess their reliability and monitor changes in performance over time.

The AMA emphasized that physicians should play a central role in developing clinical performance standards and identifying potential risks. However, it cautioned against relying on physician oversight as the primary safeguard against deficiencies in AI systems.

According to the organization, physician expertise should inform how AI performance is evaluated, but manufacturers must remain responsible for establishing that their products meet appropriate safety and effectiveness standards.

"Manufacturers must remain accountable for the performance of their products, and patients and physicians deserve the confidence that these technologies are safe and effective," said AMA president Willie Underwood, MD.

The AMA offered to collaborate with the FDA and other stakeholders to develop standards for physician evaluation of AI-generated clinical information, ongoing performance assessments and identification of AI failures that could affect patient care.

The recommendations come as the FDA considers new approaches to regulating generative AI-enabled medical devices. Its August discussion paper proposed a framework for assessing device risks, evaluating clinical performance before products reach the market and monitoring their safety after deployment.

The agency also sought feedback on the regulatory implications of increasingly autonomous AI systems capable of performing clinical tasks.

The AMA supports an approach that minimizes unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining safeguards proportionate to the risks posed by individual technologies.

The organization's recommendations also have implications for medical professional liability as AI systems take on more consequential clinical responsibilities, raising questions about the respective roles of physicians, technology developers and manufacturers when AI-generated information contributes to patient care.

The AMA has separately developed a governance framework addressing liability, licensure and regulation as increasingly capable AI systems assume clinical functions.

The organization said it intends to continue working with federal regulators, technology developers and physicians to establish standards that support innovation while protecting patients.

Curi Recognized for Removing Mental Health Questions From MPL Insurance Applications

October 20, 2026 by matray

Curi has been named a 2026 Wellbeing First Champion by ALL IN: Wellbeing First for Healthcare, marking the second consecutive year the medical professional liability insurer has received recognition for eliminating potentially stigmatizing mental health questions from its insurance applications.

The Raleigh, N.C.-based healthcare advisory firm was the first medical professional liability insurer to receive the designation in 2025. The recognition is awarded by a coalition led by the Dr. Lorna Breen Foundation, which works to remove barriers that discourage healthcare professionals from seeking mental healthcare.

To qualify for the designation, Curi's medical professional liability insurance applications underwent an annual review to verify that they do not contain invasive or stigmatizing questions about applicants' mental health.

The initiative seeks to address concerns among physicians and other healthcare professionals that disclosing mental health treatment could negatively affect their careers, including their ability to obtain professional liability insurance.

"Physicians and healthcare providers spend their careers taking care of others. We believe they should be able to prioritize their own wellbeing without worrying that seeking care could jeopardize their careers," said Jason Sandner, CEO of Curi.

Sandner said the second consecutive designation reflects the company's continuing commitment to reducing barriers to mental healthcare rather than a one-time change to its application process.

The Wellbeing First Champion program is part of a broader effort to eliminate institutional policies and practices that may discourage healthcare professionals from obtaining mental health services.

Corey Feist, CEO and co-founder of the Dr. Lorna Breen Foundation, said Curi has extended its efforts beyond revising insurance applications to include education, advocacy and discussions about physician mental health.

"Updating paperwork is an essential first step, but real transformation occurs when organizations actively shift the surrounding culture. Curi stands out as the only professional liability insurer in the country going beyond policy change to drive education, open dialogue, and advocacy," Feist said. "Through this culture change work, Curi is creating psychological safety for healthcare professionals to feel supported and empowered to seek care without fear."