Court Opinion

ID: 9914050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 15:03:52.155824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:00.768701
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

                                   No. 22–1927

           Submitted November 15, 2023—Filed December 22, 2023

BRITNI HILTS,

      Appellee,

vs.

ADAM B. SMITH, ADAM SMITH, M.D., P.C., and TRI-STATE SPECIALISTS,
L.L.P.,

      Appellants.

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, James N.

Daane, Judge.

      The defendants in a medical malpractice case seek interlocutory review of

an order denying their motion to strike and for summary judgment because the

expert who signed the plaintiff’s certificate of merit did not have an active license

to practice medicine. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

      Per curiam.

      Jeff W. Wright and Zach A. Martin of Heidman Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Sioux
City, for appellants.

      Jon Specht of Trial Lawyers for Justice, Decorah, for appellee.
                                       2

PER CURIAM.
      Iowa law requires an expert witness on standard of care or its breach by a

health care provider to be “licensed to practice in the same or a substantially

similar field as the defendant.” Iowa Code § 147.139(1) (2020).

      In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff submitted a certificate of

merit affidavit signed by a physician who formerly practiced in the same field as

the defendant, plastic surgery. But due to his retirement, the physician’s active

practice licenses had expired and become inactive, meaning that he was no

longer able to practice medicine. The defendants moved to strike the expert and

for summary judgment on this ground. After the district court denied the

defendants’ motion, we granted their application for an interlocutory appeal.

      In a companion case decided today, Hummel v. Smith, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___

(Iowa 2023), we have concluded that the phrase “licensed to practice,” as used

in Iowa Code section 147.139(1), requires the expert to have an active license

that authorizes the actual practice of medicine; an inactive license not

authorizing practice is insufficient. This case involves the same named expert as

Hummel. Id. at ___. The expert signed the affidavit in 2020, when he was retired,

as in Hummel. Id. at ___. Therefore, for the reasons stated in Hummel, we reverse
the district court’s ruling and remand for entry of judgment in favor of the

defendants.

      REVERSED AND REMANDED.
      This opinion shall not be published.