Anita Harmon, as an Individual and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Euella Potter, 2014 WY 90

Anita Harmon, personal representative for her mother’s estate, presented a governmental claim to Star Valley Medical and Care Centers after her mother’s fatal fall; the claim was signed but not sworn under oath as required by the amended WGCA § 1-39-113(e).
The claim used language “under penalty of paying” and was merely acknowledged by a notary rather than subscribed and sworn; it was therefore not executed under penalty of false swearing as the statute prescribes.
Harmon filed suit after the Medical Review Panel step was waived; defendants admitted governmental status but generally denied compliance with the WGCA and reserved the right to challenge claim compliance in an affirmative defense.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was invalid because it was not signed under oath as required by statute and the Wyoming Constitution; the district court granted summary judgment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Wyoming Supreme Court concluded the claim did not comply with § 1-39-113(e) (not signed under oath), but held that statutory/constitutional claim requirements are substantive conditions precedent—not jurisdictional—and thus can be waived.
Because defendants failed to plead the claim-defect defense with the specificity required by W.R.C.P. 9(c), they waived it; the Court reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the claim meet WGCA § 1-39-113(e) and Art. 16 § 7?	Harmon: substantial compliance; wording was a typographical error.	Defendants: claim not signed under oath/penalty of false swearing; invalid.	Held: Claim failed statutory oath requirement and was not signed under oath.
Does failure to strictly comply deprive district court of subject-matter jurisdiction?	Harmon: noncompliance is curable/waivable; jurisdiction exists if complaint alleges claim class.	Defendants: noncompliance is jurisdictional and requires dismissal.	Held: Requirements are substantive conditions precedent, not jurisdictional; prior cases to contrary overruled.
Was the defendants’ challenge to claim validity waived?	Harmon: defendants failed to plead the defense specifically; waived.	Defendants: reserved right to challenge claim compliance in affirmative defenses and later raised it in summary judgment.	Held: Defendants’ boilerplate affirmative defense did not meet W.R.C.P. 9(c); defense waived.
What remedy/result follows from waiver despite defective claim?	Harmon: proceed to merits; allow case to continue.	Defendants: dismissal appropriate because claim invalid.	Held: Because defense waived, case remanded for further proceedings; court advises using statutory form exactly.

Brown v. City of Casper, 248 P.3d 1136 (Wyo. 2011) (held claim presentation is a condition precedent, not jurisdictional; allowed amendment)
Cantrell v. Sweetwater Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 133 P.3d 983 (Wyo. 2006) (analyzed constitutional certification language and accepted unsworn certifications under penalty of perjury pre-2010)
Martinez v. City of Cheyenne, 791 P.2d 949 (Wyo. 1990) (held certification defects are nonjurisdictional; defense waived if not timely raised)
Beaulieu v. Florquist, 86 P.3d 863 (Wyo. 2004) (previously held claim requirements jurisdictional; partially overruled)
Bell v. Schell, 101 P.3d 465 (Wyo. 2004) (applied jurisdictional rule for WGCA claim compliance; affected by current overruling)
Lavatai v. State, 121 P.3d 121 (Wyo. 2005) (illustrated strategic non-disclosure by defendants and enforcement of jurisdictional-rule outcomes)
Wooster v. Carbon County Sch. Dist. No. 1, 109 P.3d 893 (Wyo. 2005) (reaffirmed nonclaim/statute-of-limitations consequences under pre-change jurisprudence)