2 N.W.3d 868
Iowa2024Background
- Charlene and Michael Jorgensen sued Dr. Adam Smith, his professional corporation, and Tri-State Specialists, LLP, after Charlene allegedly suffered injuries from a 2018 surgery performed by Dr. Smith at Tri-State.
- The claims against Tri-State included negligent retention, alleging Tri-State knew or should have known Dr. Smith was unfit to practice surgery due to prior warnings from another doctor.
- Under Iowa Code § 147.140, plaintiffs in medical negligence cases generally must timely file a certificate of merit affidavit from an expert attesting to a breach of standard of care.
- The Jorgensens timely filed an expert affidavit addressing Dr. Smith's alleged malpractice, but not specifically Tri-State’s retention of Dr. Smith.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing both § 147.140 (certificate of merit requirement) and § 668.11 (expert witness disclosure) mandated dismissal of the negligent retention claim due to lack of an expert opinion on Tri-State’s conduct.
- The district court denied summary judgment, finding no certificate of merit affidavit was required for the negligent retention claim, and the defendants appealed this interlocutory order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 147.140 require a certificate of merit affidavit as to Tri-State’s negligent retention? | The claim is about administrative, not professional, conduct; no expert review needed | Negligent retention is part of Tri-State’s health care “occupation,” requiring a certificate | No; statutory “occupation” refers to individuals, not entities; statute doesn't require it here |
| Is Tri-State a “health care provider” under § 147.140? | Tri-State is a business entity, not a direct provider of care | Statute defines "health care provider" to include clinics | Yes; Tri-State is a clinic and fits statutory definition |
| Is expert testimony/disclosure under § 668.11 required for Tri-State? | Tri-State is not a “licensed professional,” so no disclosure needed | Tri-State runs a clinic—should qualify as a professional under the statute | No; Tri-State is not a licensed professional under § 668.11 |
| Should summary judgment be granted for lack of proper expert affidavits/disclosure? | No procedural error; case should proceed | Required affidavits/disclosures weren't provided on negligent retention | No; summary judgment not required, affirmed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Struck v. Mercy Health Servs.-Iowa Corp., 973 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2022) (addressed certificate of merit requirements and negligent retention claims in a different factual context)
- Hall v. Jennie Edmundson Mem’l Hosp., 812 N.W.2d 681 (Iowa 2012) (discussed when expert testimony is required in nonmedical, administrative conduct cases)
- Kiesau v. Bantz, 686 N.W.2d 164 (Iowa 2004) (set out requirements for proving negligent hiring, supervision, or retention)
- Godar v. Edwards, 588 N.W.2d 701 (Iowa 1999) (explained standards for negligent hiring and retention claims)
- Welte v. Bello, 482 N.W.2d 437 (Iowa 1992) (explained need for expert testimony in surgery-related medical negligence)