Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.
A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.
The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.
The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.
The Iowa Board of Medical Examiners cannot be sued in federal court for monetary relief, according to the ruling Chief Judge Linda R. Reade returned on March 5 when she partially dismissed a physician’s lawsuit.
The Sioux City-area physician, Ralph Reeder, is a neurosurgeon from Dakota Dunes, S.D. He initially launched a suit in February 2009 against Thomas Carroll, M.D., the Woodbury County medical examiner, for slander, libel and false light invasion of privacy. Reeder later, in September 2009, added the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners to the lawsuit, accusing both Carroll and the Board of civil conspiracy to commit false light invasion of privacy.
Reade noted the Board “has not waived or abrogated” its right of immunity, as provided by the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment affords a state and its agencies immunity from lawsuits unless the state waives the immunity or voluntarily submits itself to federal jurisdiction. Reade also noted that public policy and judicial efficiency arguments to keep the Board in the lawsuit were without merit.
Carroll filed a complaint against Reeder in 2004 with the Board of Medicine. The Board subsequently investigated Reeder’s surgery practices and filed charges against him in February 2008, relying on an independent peer review of board-certified neurosurgeons. Later that year, the Board then dismissed the charges, citing insufficient evidence.
Reeder, according to court documents, decided to include the Board in his suit when a spokesperson from the Iowa Attorney General’s Office indicated to the media that the office was “monitoring” the lawsuit and “might intervene in the case to try to protect the complaint process for the medical board and similar licensing boards.” Reeder argued that such assertions by the Attorney General’s Office “affirmatively expressed its intent and willingness to subject itself to federal court jurisdiction for purposes of this lawsuit.” Because the state did not actually intervene or attempt to intervene in the action pending before the court, Reade ruled, and the comments by a office spokesperson in the media were not a “clear declaration” of its intent to do so.
Reeder’s additional arguments that immunity should be waived because the Board acted with malice, and that it would be more expedient and efficient for the case to move forward intact were also rebuffed by Reade.
Although the ruling by Reade dismisses the portion of the federal lawsuit against the Board, it does not impact the suit against Carroll.
Follow Lynda Waddington on Twitter
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter