Teresa Marie Rarick and Richard Dee Rarick v. Wesley Smidt And Des Moines Orthopaedic Surgeons, Pc

── Teresa Marie Rarick and Richard Dee Rarick v. Wesley Smidt And Des Moines Orthopaedic Surgeons, Pc ── Court: Supreme Court of Iowa Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General In the Iowa Supreme Court No. 24–1704 Submitted October 8, 2025—Filed May 22, 2026 Teresa Marie Rarick and Richard Dee Rarick, Appellants, vs. Wesley Smidt and Des Moines Orthopaedic Surgeons, P.C., Appellees. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman J. McAllister, judge. Medical malpractice plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their suit under Iowa Code section 147.140. Affirmed. May, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Christensen, C.J., and Waterman and McDonald, JJ., joined. Waterman, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Christensen, C.J., joined. Mansfield, J., filed a dissenting opinion. McDermott, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Oxley, J., joined. Scott M. Wadding of Sease & Wadding, Des Moines, for appellants. Jack Hilmes, Erik P. Bergeland, and Joseph F. Moser of Finley Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.  2 May, Justice. Iowa Code section 147.140(1)(a) (2023) requires a medical malpractice plaintiff to serve a certificate of merit “affidavit” within sixty days after the defendant answers. We have interpreted this affidavit requirement on several occasions, including our recent opinions in Miller v. Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, Corp., 7 N.W.3d 367, 370 (Iowa 2024), and Banwart v. Neurosurgery of North Iowa, P.C., 18 N.W.3d 267, 270 (Iowa 2025). Under those precedents, substantial compliance with the affidavit requirement requires either (1) a true “affidavit,” meaning a written declaration under oath that is made in the presence of “any person authorized to administer oaths,” Iowa Code section 622.85; or (2) a written statement that includes the phrase “penalty of perjury” as required by our affidavit-substitute statute, Iowa Code section 622.1. See Miller, 7 N.W.3d at 375; Banwart, 18 N.W.3d at 273. In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiffs timely served a certificate of merit. But this certificate was not a true affidavit, and it did not include the phrase “penalty of perjury.” So the certificate did not substantially comply with section 147.140’s “affidavit” requirement. And so the district court was correct to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm. I. Background Facts and Procedure. A. This Suit. In March 2022, Richard Rarick was injured during knee surgery. In January 2023, Richard and his wife (collectively Rarick) brought this medical malpractice suit against the surgeon, Dr. Wesley Smidt, and the clinic where the surgeon practiced, Des Moines Orthopaedic Surgeons, P.C. (collectively DMOS). B. The 2023 Certificate. DMOS filed its answer on March 14. The same day, Rarick served a document entitled “Certificate of Merit Affidavit.” This  3 document, which we refer to as the “2023 certificate,” began with a standard Iowa lawsuit caption. Beneath the caption, there appeared the phrases “STATE OF ARIZONA” and “COUNTY OF PIMA.” Then the certificate stated: “The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states as follows: . . . .” Next came the certificate’s main text. This text included a summary of the qualifications and opinions of Dr. Gerlinger, Rarick’s medical malpractice expert. It also incorporated Dr. Gerlinger’s report by reference. The certificate ended with Dr. Gerlinger’s undated signature: As this reproduction shows, Dr. Gerlinger’s signature was not accompanied by any notary stamp or jurat, that is, “[a] certification added to an affidavit . . . stating when and before what authority the affidavit . . . was made.” Jurat, Black’s Law Dictionary 1013 (12th ed. 2024). Nor did the certificate includ