Show notes
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/607us1r10_5hek.pdf
Case background
Delaware law provides that a plaintiff may not sue for medical malpractice
unless a medical professional attests to the suit’s merit in an “affidavit of
merit” that “accompanie[s]” the plaintiff’s complaint. Del. Code, Tit. 18,
§ 6853(a)(1). If no affidavit accompanies the complaint and no timely motion
for an extension has been filed, the clerk of court must refuse to file the
complaint and it is not docketed.
Petitioner Harold Berk fell out of bed while on a trip to Delaware and was
taken to a hospital owned by Beebe Medical Center, Inc., where an X-ray
revealed a fractured ankle. Dr. Wilson Choy recommended a protective boot;
hospital employees forced Berk’s leg into it, twisting the fractured ankle,
and a second X-ray two weeks later showed the ankle was severely deformed and
required surgery. Berk sued Dr. Choy and Beebe Medical Center in federal
court on diversity jurisdiction for medical malpractice under Delaware law.
He obtained an extension of time but could not find a doctor willing to
provide the affidavit, and filed his medical records under seal instead.
Berk argued that § 6853 is not enforceable in federal court because it is
displaced by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court
disagreed and dismissed his lawsuit for failure to comply with Delaware’s
affidavit law. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that § 6853 is substantive
under the Erie doctrine and so applies in federal court.
Questions Presented
(1) Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.
Holding
Delaware’s affidavit law does not apply in federal court.
When a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is on point, a federal court bypasses
the Erie inquiry: a valid Federal Rule displaces contrary state law even if
the state law would qualify as substantive under Erie. Rule 8 answers the
disputed question here. It prescribes the information a plaintiff must
present about the merits of his claim at the outset of litigation: “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.”
By requiring no more than that, it establishes with unmistakable clarity
that evidence of the claim is not required. Rule 12 reinforces the point.
Delaware’s law demands more, so the two give different answers to whether
Berk’s complaint can be dismissed as insufficient for want of an affidavit.
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. does not exempt a broad category of
“preconditions to proceeding” from conflict with the Federal Rules, and
Rule 11’s proviso concerning affidavits does not reach affidavits from third
parties.
Because Rule 8 and § 6853 answer the same question, Rule 8 governs so long as
it is valid under the Rules Enabling Act. It is: Rule 8 “really regulates
procedure,” and the substantive nature or purpose of the displaced state law
makes no difference to that analysis. Reversed and remanded.
The Court
Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice
Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh
joined. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, arguing
that the relevant conflicts are with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 3 and
12, not Rule 8.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Berk v. Choy, written by Justice Barrett.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Barrett. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
