from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2014-095832
The Honorable Mark F. Aceto, Judge (Retired)
Romero, Queen Creek Plaintiff/Appellant Pro Per
& Armer PC, Tempe By Scott A. Holden, Carolyn Armer
Holden Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
Jon W. Thompson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Charles W.
Gurtler, Jr. joined. 
David Romero appeals the dismissal of his medical malpractice
claim against Khalid S. Hasan, M.D., for failure to file a
preliminary expert affidavit as required under Arizona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 12-2603
(2016). For the following reasons, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In October 2014, Romero filed a complaint alleging Hasan
negligently prescribed an incorrect dosage of synthroid in
In December 2014, Romero certified pursuant to A.R.S. §
12- 2603 that expert testimony was not necessary to prove the
proper standard of care or breach. Hasan disputed that
certification and moved to dismiss Romero's claim for
failure to comply with A.R.S. § 12-2603. Romero
responded that his claim did not require expert testimony,
but requested additional time to comply with the
statute's requirement to provide a preliminary expert
affidavit if the superior court concluded to the contrary.
Finding Romero's claim required expert testimony, the
superior court ordered him to provide a preliminary expert
opinion affidavit within nine weeks.
Three days before the court-ordered deadline, Romero
requested the superior court set a hearing so his treating
physicians could "establish the requirements under
A.R.S. § 12-2603." Romero admitted he was unable to
obtain the affidavits required by A.R.S. § 12-2603. The
superior court denied Romero's request for a hearing and
dismissed Romero's claim without prejudice.
Romero points out that Arizona has a savings statute - A.R.S.
§ 12-504(A)-that would have permitted him to refile his
action; however, no issue regarding A.R.S. § 12-504(A)
is presently before us. We have jurisdiction. See
A.R.S. §§ 12-2101(A)(3) (2016) (appellate
jurisdiction), -120.21(A)(4) (2016) (special actions
On appeal, Romero argues the superior court erred in
rejecting his request for his treating physicians to testify
at a hearing in lieu of him serving a preliminary affidavit
as required by A.R.S § 12-2603. We review de novo the
superior court's order granting a motion to dismiss.