Background
In April 2022, Molly Pumphrey, as executor of the estate of Rebecca Lynn Myers, sued Clarinda Regional Health Center and several individual healthcare providers, alleging that medical malpractice caused Myers’s death in October 2020. To satisfy Iowa Code section 147.140, the plaintiffs filed three certificates of merit signed by expert witnesses. However, none of the certificates stated they were signed “under penalty of perjury” or included a jurat confirming they were signed under oath.
Two years into the litigation, the Iowa Supreme Court issued its decision in Miller v. Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, Corp., 7 N.W.3d 367 (Iowa 2024), holding that signed but unsworn certificates of merit do not substantially comply with section 147.140. Facing certain dismissal under Miller, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their first action without prejudice and, invoking Iowa’s savings statute (Iowa Code § 614.10), refiled the suit three months later. The savings statute permits a plaintiff whose action fails for any cause except negligence in prosecution to refile within six months.
The defendants moved to dismiss the second action as untimely, arguing the savings statute did not apply because the plaintiffs had been negligent in obtaining certificates of merit that did not conform with section 147.140. The Page County District Court agreed and dismissed the refiled action. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Court’s Holding
After oral argument, the Iowa Supreme Court directly resolved the controlling question in Task v. Ahmed, ___ N.W.3d ___, 2026 WL 1500872 (Iowa 2026), holding that Iowa Code section 614.10 saves medical malpractice actions that were pending when Miller was decided and were later dismissed in order to remedy defects in their certificates of merit.
The Iowa Court of Appeals found Task to be dispositive and, without independently analyzing the negligence question, reversed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ second action and remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Iowa’s savings statute (§ 614.10) applies to medical malpractice plaintiffs who voluntarily dismissed and refiled after their certificates of merit were rendered defective by the Iowa Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Miller v. Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, Corp.
- Plaintiffs whose cases were pending at the time Miller was decided are not deemed “negligent in prosecution” simply because their certificates of merit lacked an oath or jurat — a requirement that was clarified only by Miller itself.
- The Iowa Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling in Task v. Ahmed controlled this appeal, illustrating how a timely supreme court decision can resolve pending appeals on identical issues.
Why It Matters
This decision, following Task v. Ahmed, provides critical relief for medical malpractice plaintiffs who filed suits before Miller clarified the oath requirement for certificates of merit under Iowa Code section 147.140. Attorneys who dismissed those cases and refiled under the savings statute now have confirmation that those refiled actions are timely and may proceed on the merits.
The ruling also underscores the importance of monitoring intervening appellate decisions during pending litigation: here, a supreme court ruling issued after oral argument — but before the Court of Appeals issued its opinion — proved entirely dispositive, mooting the need for independent analysis and resulting in a straightforward reversal.