Iowa House Bill HSB210

Iowa 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/19/25
• Refer: 2/19/25

Caption

A bill for an act relating to medical malpractice claims, including expert witness certificate of merit affidavits.

Impact

The key implications of HSB210 would be the procedural adjustments it introduces in malpractice lawsuits. By mandating the certificate of merit at an earlier stage, the bill aims to decrease the number of unsubstantiated claims filed, thereby protecting healthcare providers from excessive litigation. Stakeholders anticipate this could lead to more streamlined court processes. However, it also places a burden on plaintiffs to secure expert support upfront, which could be challenging for some, particularly in more complex medical cases. This requirement might inadvertently limit access to justice for certain victims of malpractice.

Summary

HSB210 is a proposed legislation aimed at amending the requirements for medical malpractice claims in the state of Iowa. The bill stipulates that in actions for personal injury or wrongful death against healthcare providers, a plaintiff must serve a certificate of merit affidavit for each expert witness within sixty days of the defendant's answer. This certificate must include statements certifying the expert’s familiarity with the standard of care, any alleged breach of that standard, and how the breach caused the injury or death. This is intended to ensure that only cases with legitimate expert support proceed, potentially reducing frivolous lawsuits against healthcare providers.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HSB210 include the potential impact on victims of medical negligence. Opponents argue that the necessity of an expert affidavit may deter legitimate claims from being pursued due to the added upfront costs and logistics of obtaining expert support. This concern is compounded by the stipulations that challenge motions regarding the certificates must be made within strictly defined timeframes, which could affect a plaintiff's ability to adapt to evolving case circumstances. Advocates for the bill counter that these measures are essential for evaluating claim validity early and helping to reduce the burden on courts and healthcare professionals.