Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-1380 Filed October 21, 2026 _______________ Jennifer Boyer, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lois Jean Boyer, Jennifer Boyer, Individually and as Successor of the Estate of Lois Jean Boyer, and Cory Boyer, Individually and as Successor in Interest of Lois Jean Boyer, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Genesis Health System, Mercy Medical Center—Clinton, Inc., Apogee Medical Group, Iowa, P.C., Ahmed K. Quasem, M.D., and Pranjal Sharma, M.D., Defendants–Appellees. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, The Honorable Patrick A. McElyea, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Erin E. Jordan and Katie M. Naset of Hope Law Firm & Associates, P.C., West Des Moines, attorneys for appellants. Jennifer E. Rinden, Vincent S. Geis, and Eric P. Martin of Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, attorneys for appellees Genesis Health System and Mercy Medical Center—Clinton, Inc. 1 Richard A. Stefani and Thomas F. Ochs of Gray, Stefani & Mitvalsky, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, attorneys for appellees Apogee Medical Group, P.C., and Ahmed K. Quasem. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ. Opinion by Buller, J. 2 BULLER, Judge. Does a dismissal for a defective certificate of merit bar refiling under the savings statute? The district court answered yes as it relates to claims brought by Jennifer and Cory Boyer (the Boyers), finding an earlier certificate-of-merit dismissal was with prejudice. We agree and affirm. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS In 2024, the Boyers brought medical-malpractice claims against Genesis Health System, Mercy Medical Center—Clinton, Apogee Medical Group, Dr. Ahmed Quasem, and Dr. Pranjal Sharma relating to their mother Lois’s medical treatment. The district court dismissed this petition with prejudice for failure to comply with the oath requirement of Iowa Code section 147.140 (2024) in light of Miller v. Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, Corp., 7 N.W.3d 367 (Iowa 2024). Following dismissal, the Boyers refiled their claims in a second petition seeking to apply the savings statute—Iowa Code section 614.10. The district court dismissed the second petition, finding the 2024 petition’s dismissal under section 147.140 was a final adjudication on the merits precluding application of the savings statute. The Boyers appeal. STANDARD OF REVIEW “We review rulings on motions to dismiss under Iowa Code section 147.140(6) and the district court’s statutory construction for correction of errors at law.” Est. of Fahrmann v. ABCM Corp., 999 N.W.2d 283, 286 (Iowa 2023). 3 THE SAVINGS STATUTE “The savings statute, Iowa Code [section] 614.10, allows a second lawsuit to proceed as a continuation of a prior lawsuit in certain situations . . . .” Trask v. Ahmed, 36 N.W.3d 91, 95 (Iowa 2026). The savings statute is intended to balance competing policies of giving plaintiffs their day in court without swallowing statutory requirements. See Furnald v. Hughes, 804 N.W.2d 273, 276 (Iowa 2011). The savings statute here provides: If, after the commencement of an action, the plaintiff, for any cause except negligence in its prosecution, fails therein, and a new one is brought within six months thereafter, the second shall be held a continuation of the first. Iowa Code § 614.10. It “applies only when no final judgment upon the merits has been entered in a prior action.” Berntsen v. Coopers & Lybrand, L.L.P., 623 N.W.2d 843, 846 (Iowa 2001). “The word ‘continuation’ in section 614.10 implies a resumption of an action that has not been finally concluded.” Id. Specific to medical-malpractice claims, the General Assembly has provided that failure to substantially comply with the certificate-of-merit requirements results in “dismissal with prejudice.” Iowa Code § 147.140(6). The Boyers argue the first petition was dismissed on a procedural technicality, not on the merits. While this appeal was pending, our supreme court decided this issue in Shontz v. Mercy Medical Center—Clinton, Inc., 33 N.W.3d 598, 604–05 (Iowa 2026). Under now-settled legal principles, a dismissal with prejudice under Iowa Code section 147.140 is a final adjudication on the merits. See id. This is consistent with the rules of civil procedure. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.946 (“All dismissals not governed by rule 1.943 or not for want of jurisdiction or improper venue, shall operate as adjudications on the merits unless they specify otherwise.”). 4 Miller was decided while the Boyers’ first case was pending. But this provides them no relief, as they did not voluntarily dismiss the first petition before the district court dismissed it with prejudice. Cf. Kirlin v. Monaster, 984 N.W.2d 412, 415 (Iowa 2023) (holding a voluntary dismissal for a noncompliant certificate of merit moots a pending motion to dismiss and the dismissal is without prejudice); Ronnfeldt v. Shelby Cnty. Chris A. Myrtue Mem’l Hosp., 984 N.W.2d 418, 429 (Iowa 2023) (same); Trask, 36 N.W.3d at 99 (similar). We have reviewed these and other cases the Boyers cited in a post-submission notice of additional authorities, and we conclude none provide any basis for relief. To the extent the Boyers’ arguments can be heard anywhere, only the supreme court can overrule the cases needed to grant the Boyers relief. See State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014). We affirm the district court because both the statute and case law require us to conclude the dismissal of the first petition was with prejudice and a final adjudication on the merits. CLAIM PRECLUSION The Boyers’ res judicata argument, based on the doctrine of claim preclusion, overlaps substantially with their argument regarding the savings statute. The only element of claim preclusion they contest is whether there was a “final judgment on the merits” when the first petition was dismissed. See Braunschweig v. Fahrenkrog, 773 N.W.2d 888, 893 (Iowa 2009) (setting out the elements of claim preclusion). Our analysis above applies with equal force here: the dismissal was a final adjudication on the merits with prejudice. AFFIRMED. 5