Carpenter v. Daar

Summary

The court held that the statutory opinion-letter requirement for medical malpractice actions is a nonjurisdictional procedural device and overruled prior precedent to the extent it treated the requirement as implicating personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, courts reviewing such motions must evaluate the complaint and opinion letter on their face, without resolving factual disputes through jurisdictional affidavits, while retaining authority to permit curative amendments or supplementation. The court further held that the complaint and opinion letter adequately alleged and established that the expert was a similar health care provider because the defendant was alleged to have held himself out as practicing in endodontics.