Romero v. Hasan, 241 Ariz. 385

Plaintiff David Romero sued Dr. Khalid S. Hasan alleging negligent prescription of an incorrect synthroid dosage in October 2012.
Romero certified under A.R.S. § 12-2603 that expert testimony was not necessary; Hasan contested that certification and moved to require a preliminary expert affidavit.
The superior court concluded expert testimony was necessary and ordered Romero to serve a preliminary expert opinion affidavit within nine weeks.
Romero admitted he had not obtained the required affidavits and requested a hearing to have his treating physicians testify in lieu of serving the affidavit.
The superior court denied the hearing request and dismissed Romero’s claim without prejudice for failing to comply with the court-ordered affidavit requirement.
Romero appealed, arguing the court erred by refusing a hearing in place of the statutory affidavit; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court may permit testimony/hearing from treating physicians instead of requiring a preliminary expert opinion affidavit under A.R.S. § 12-2603	Romero: treating physicians should be allowed to testify at a hearing in lieu of serving the preliminary affidavit	Hasan: § 12-2603 requires a preliminary expert opinion affidavit when ordered; no hearing substitute	The court held § 12-2603 unambiguously requires the affidavit and does not provide for a hearing substitute; dismissal for noncompliance was proper

Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352 (discusses standard of review for dismissal orders)
McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc., 220 Ariz. 71 (statutory language is primary evidence of legislative intent)
Walker v. City of Scottsdale, 163 Ariz. 206 (same)
Melendez v. Hallmark Ins. Co., 232 Ariz. 327 (apply clear statutory language as written)
Jilly v. Rayes, 221 Ariz. 40 (describing § 12-2603 affidavit as certifying the action is not meritless)
Romero v. Sw. Ambulance, 211 Ariz. 200 (procedural default/waiver principle on appeal)