Britni Hilts v. Adam B. Smith, Adam Smith, M.D., P.C., and Tri-State Specialists, L.L.P.
This text of Britni Hilts v. Adam B. Smith, Adam Smith, M.D., P.C., and Tri-State Specialists, L.L.P. (Britni Hilts v. Adam B. Smith, Adam Smith, M.D., P.C., and Tri-State Specialists, L.L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 22–1927
Submitted November 15, 2023—Filed December 22, 2023
BRITNI HILTS,
Appellee,
vs.
ADAM B. SMITH, ADAM SMITH, M.D., P.C., and TRI-STATE SPECIALISTS, L.L.P.,
Appellants.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, James N.
Daane, Judge.
The defendants in a medical malpractice case seek interlocutory review of
an order denying their motion to strike and for summary judgment because the
expert who signed the plaintiff’s certificate of merit did not have an active license
to practice medicine. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Per curiam.
Jeff W. Wright and Zach A. Martin of Heidman Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Sioux City, for appellants.
Jon Specht of Trial Lawyers for Justice, Decorah, for appellee. 2
PER CURIAM. Iowa law requires an expert witness on standard of care or its breach by a
health care provider to be “licensed to practice in the same or a substantially
similar field as the defendant.” Iowa Code § 147.139(1) (2020).
In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff submitted a certificate of
merit affidavit signed by a physician who formerly practiced in the same field as
the defendant, plastic surgery. But due to his retirement, the physician’s active
practice licenses had expired and become inactive, meaning that he was no
longer able to practice medicine. The defendants moved to strike the expert and
for summary judgment on this ground. After the district court denied the
defendants’ motion, we granted their application for an interlocutory appeal.
In a companion case decided today, Hummel v. Smith, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___
(Iowa 2023), we have concluded that the phrase “licensed to practice,” as used
in Iowa Code section 147.139(1), requires the expert to have an active license
that authorizes the actual practice of medicine; an inactive license not
authorizing practice is insufficient. This case involves the same named expert as
Hummel. Id. at ___. The expert signed the affidavit in 2020, when he was retired,
as in Hummel. Id. at ___. Therefore, for the reasons stated in Hummel, we reverse the district court’s ruling and remand for entry of judgment in favor of the
defendants.
REVERSED AND REMANDED. This opinion shall not be published.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Britni Hilts v. Adam B. Smith, Adam Smith, M.D., P.C., and Tri-State Specialists, L.L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britni-hilts-v-adam-b-smith-adam-smith-md-pc-and-tri-state-iowa-2023.