The Iowa Supreme Court recently ruled on a significant medical malpractice case that could change how certificates of merit are handled in the state. The court's decision affects the plaintiffs, Michelle Bunce and her family, who allege that medical negligence led to severe health complications for Michelle. The ruling also impacts medical professionals and institutions in Iowa, as it clarifies the requirements for presenting a valid certificate of merit in malpractice cases.
This case, known as Bunce v. Hansen, was filed under docket number 24-2034. It involved Michelle Bunce, who suffered serious health issues after multiple hospital visits where she was misdiagnosed. Her husband, Thomas Bunce, filed the malpractice suit on behalf of Michelle, claiming that the doctors failed to provide the necessary care, resulting in permanent damage.
Background
Michelle Bunce visited several hospitals in January and February 2019 due to severe headaches and vomiting. After being treated and sent home without a proper diagnosis, her condition worsened, leading to a seizure and hospitalization at Iowa Methodist Medical Center. Despite undergoing tests, doctors failed to diagnose her condition until she was transferred to the Mayo Clinic, where she was finally diagnosed with posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) and reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS).
Due to the delays in treatment, Michelle suffered permanent brain damage and is now wheelchair-bound, requiring constant care. In February 2021, Thomas Bunce filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the doctors and hospitals involved in her treatment, seeking damages for the harm caused to Michelle and the loss of parental consortium for their daughter.
The lawsuit included a certificate of merit (COM) signed by Dr. Rajat Dhar, who asserted that the standard of care was breached. However, this COM lacked a jurat or a statement that it was signed under penalty of perjury, which is a requirement under Iowa Code section 147.140.
The Ruling
The Iowa Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal after the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case based on the deficiencies in the COM. The court's ruling reversed the district court's decision, stating, "We reverse the district court's ruling that denied the defendants' motion to dismiss under Iowa Code section 147.140." The opinion was delivered by Justice Waterman, with Chief Justice Christensen and Justice May joining.
The court explained that the COM must comply with the statute's requirements, which include being signed under oath. The defendants argued that the original COM did not meet these standards, and the court agreed, stating that the district court erred in believing that the Miller case applied only prospectively. The court emphasized that judicial decisions generally apply to cases that exist at the time they are decided.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for medical malpractice cases in Iowa. It clarifies that the requirements for a certificate of merit must be strictly followed, and failure to do so can result in dismissal of the case. The decision reinforces the importance of compliance with statutory requirements in legal proceedings, particularly for plaintiffs seeking to prove negligence in medical cases.
The ruling may discourage some plaintiffs from pursuing malpractice claims if they cannot meet the strict requirements for certificates of merit. It also places a greater burden on medical professionals to ensure that they are adequately prepared to respond to claims against them. Overall, this decision sets a clear precedent regarding the handling of certificates of merit in Iowa.
What's Next
The case has been remanded back to the district court for entry of an order dismissing the action with prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs cannot bring the case again. It is unclear if the plaintiffs will seek further appeals or if there are related cases pending that could be affected by this ruling.