September 24, 2026 by matray

The Iowa Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a medical malpractice action against eight healthcare providers, finding the plaintiffs’ certificates of merit failed to comply with state law because they were neither executed under oath nor signed under penalty of perjury.

Case: Estate of Williamson v. Great River Health System Inc., No. 24-1609, 09/02/2026, published.

Facts and procedural history: The estate of Emily Williamson and her children filed suit against eight of her medical providers, alleging that their malpractice over six months in late 2021 and early 2022 caused Williamson’s death.

In June 2024 — over four months before the dispositive-motion deadline — the medical providers moved to dismiss all the estate’s claims for failing to comply with the statutory certificate-of-merit requirement.

Relying on Miller v. Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa Corp., which had been decided the month before, Great River Health System argued that the estate’s attempted certificates of merit failed to substantially comply with Iowa Code Section 147.140.

Section 147.140 requires plaintiffs in medical malpractice or personal injury cases against health care providers to serve a certificate of merit affidavit from a qualified expert witness within 60 days of the defendant’s answer.

In Miller, the Iowa Supreme Court clarified the certificate must be signed under oath or penalty of perjury. The district court granted the defendants’ motion. Analysis: The Iowa Court of Appeals noted the certificates submitted by the estate were each captioned as a “Certificate of Merit Affidavit” and included an introductory statement that “[i]n compliance with Iowa Code Section 147.140,” the expert did “hereby affirm and state as follows.”

But the certificates did not have a jurat completed by a notary, or other authorized person, to prove the oath was administered.

“Calling the certificate of merit an affidavit or stating that its contents are affirmed in compliance with Section 147.140 does not make it an affidavit or make its statements to be ones under oath and actually in compliance with the statute,” the court said.

The court explained there are only two ways to substantially comply with the statute as well.

"The plaintiff must either provide (1) an actual affidavit executed by an expert before a separate person who is authorized to administer the oath, or (2) the permissible substitute, namely, a document compliant with Section 622.1, which requires the statement that the person is signing under penalty of perjury.”

Here, the court said, the certificates of merit were not actual affidavits and they did not include any penalty-of-perjury language.

“That is the end of the analysis, notwithstanding the estate’s other arguments to the contrary,” the court said. “The estate’s certificates of merit do not substantially comply with Section 147.140.”

Disposition: Affirmed.

To read the court’s decision, click here.