result of misinformation provided by the State in notifying Green that Tinley would be called as a witness. In a Notice of Additional Witnesses filed with the district court and provided to Green, the State identified Tinley as a registered nurse. As a registered nurse, Tinley would have been included in the list of those persons permitted to withdraw blood pursuant to Iowa Code section 321J.11 (2003). Apparently, Green and the district court were first informed that Tinley was actually a phle-botomist through Tinley’s own testimony at the suppression hearing. 2 . We recognize that the term "medical technologist” may have a more particularized meaning for a medical professional fully versed in medical terminology. See, e.g., Procedures in Phlebotomy 7-8 (John C. Flynn, Jr., ed.1994) (<HOLDING>). However, we believe the broader,
holding that a medical professional clearly indicated an exercise of medical judgment rather than deliberate indifference where the medical professional engaged in a goodfaith clinical assessment of plaintiffs symptoms concluding on several visits that his condition did not warrant medication recognizing that a plaintiff must produce a medical expert to testify as to causation in all but the most selfevident medical malpractice actions recognizing phlebotomists as part of the field of medical technology but providing an organizational chart of the structure of a clinical laboratory which separates medical technologists from phlebotomists holding that an aljs own medical analysis which is contrary to medical evidence is invalid holding that physician testifying as to personal knowledge of medical treatment was not required to attach medical chart to affidavit in order to verify the affidavit testimony