Berk v. Choy
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Delaware's requirement that medical malpractice plaintiffs provide a sworn statement from a medical professional alongside their complaint cannot be enforced in federal court.
Because Federal Rules of Civil Procedure already govern what a plaintiff must submit to start a lawsuit, those rules take precedence over Delaware's screening requirement — and similar rules in other states — when a case is brought in federal court.
“Rule 8 sets a ceiling on the information that plaintiffs can be required to provide about the merits of their claims.”
The majority explaining why Rule 8 prevents courts from demanding more from plaintiffs than a simple factual account of their claim.
How it got here: The federal district court dismissed Berk's lawsuit for failing to comply with Delaware's affidavit requirement; the Third Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Harold Berk, while visiting Delaware, suffered a fractured ankle and was taken to a hospital owned by Beebe Medical Center. When employees fitted him with a protective boot, they twisted his already-fractured ankle. His treating physician, Dr. Wilson Choy, delayed ordering a follow-up X-ray; a later image revealed severe deformity requiring surgery. Berk sued the hospital and Dr. Choy in federal court for medical malpractice under Delaware law but was unable to obtain the sworn statement from a medical professional that Delaware law required to accompany the complaint.
The question before the Court
Does Delaware's requirement that medical malpractice plaintiffs file a sworn statement from a medical expert alongside their complaint apply when a patient sues in federal court?
The Court's answer
No — Delaware's affidavit-of-merit requirement does not apply in federal court. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure already answer the key question of what a plaintiff must submit to start a lawsuit. Rule 8 requires only a short, plain description of the claim showing entitlement to relief, and by requiring no more than that, it implicitly forecloses any demand for additional evidence. Rule 12 reinforces this by supplying the only basis for dismissing a case on the merits — failure to state a claim — and prohibiting courts from considering materials beyond the complaint when evaluating such a motion. Because a valid Federal Rule directly addresses the same question as Delaware's affidavit requirement, the Federal Rule controls.
The Court also rejected the argument that Delaware's law could be recast as something other than a pleading requirement or that a proviso in Rule 11 created an opening for state affidavit laws. Rule 11's language about affidavits applies only to parties or their attorneys vouching for their own representations — not to sworn statements from independent third parties. Rule 8 satisfies the further requirement that Federal Rules govern procedure rather than substantive rights, so it is valid and controlling under the Rules Enabling Act.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Patients who sue doctors or hospitals in federal court — typically because they live in a different state — can no longer be dismissed for failing to secure a medical expert's endorsement before their case is heard. States that have enacted similar affidavit-of-merit screening laws for malpractice suits cannot enforce those laws in federal court, making it meaningfully easier for malpractice plaintiffs who can access federal court to move forward with their claims.
What changes now
The case is sent back to the lower federal courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. Berk's medical malpractice lawsuit can now proceed in federal court without the Delaware affidavit-of-merit requirement. The decision applies broadly: other states with similar screening laws for medical malpractice cannot enforce them in federal court. Plaintiffs suing entirely within state court systems remain subject to their state's affidavit requirements.
What this does not decide
The ruling does not affect affidavit-of-merit requirements in state courts — states may continue to require sworn expert statements when malpractice cases are filed there. It also does not prevent Congress from passing a statute specifically making such requirements enforceable in federal court, and it does not address the merits of Berk's underlying malpractice claim.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (8). Justice Barrett (author), joined by Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh.
Separate writings (1). Justice Jackson (author of a concurrence).
Concurrence — Justice Jackson
Justice Jackson agrees that Delaware's affidavit requirement cannot apply in federal court, but argues the right analytical path runs through Rules 3 and 12 — not Rule 8. Rule 3 says a civil action 'is commenced by filing a complaint' — full stop — directly conflicting with Delaware's demand for an additional filing before a case can be docketed. Rule 12(d) separately bars courts from considering matters outside the pleadings on a motion to dismiss, and the affidavit is plainly such a matter. Jackson argues the majority's Rule 8 reasoning improperly stretches that Rule beyond its subject matter — the required contents of a 'pleading' — and creates an internal contradiction by treating the affidavit as both outside the pleadings (for Rule 12 purposes) and part of what the pleadings must contain (for Rule 8 purposes). Read the full concurrence →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The threshold legal framework: when a plaintiff brings a state-law claim in federal court under diversity jurisdiction (where the parties are from different states), courts must decide whether state or federal law governs. Ordinarily, federal courts apply state substantive law under the Rules of Decision Act. But when a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure directly addresses the question at issue, that Rule displaces conflicting state law — courts do not need to wade into the murkier question of whether the state rule counts as 'substantive.'
- The Court identified the operative question as whether Berk's lawsuit could be dismissed because his complaint was not accompanied by an expert affidavit. Rule 8 answers that question: it specifies that a complaint must contain only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' By requiring no more than a factual narrative, Rule 8 establishes — implicitly but with unmistakable clarity — that no separate evidence, such as a medical expert's sworn statement, can be required.
- Rule 12 reinforces Rule 8's answer. It provides exactly one basis for dismissing a case on the merits — failing to state a plausible claim — and prohibits courts from looking at anything outside the complaint itself when deciding such a motion. Delaware's affidavit is plainly a document outside the complaint, so a dismissal for its absence has no foothold under Rule 12.
- The Court rejected the defendants' attempt to reframe Delaware's law as a 'free-floating evidentiary requirement' untethered from pleading. Even under that reframing, no Federal Rule would provide a mechanism to enforce the requirement: the absence of an affidavit is not grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), and the Federal Rules already supply the proper vehicle for testing a plaintiff's proof — a motion for summary judgment after discovery, which is not the early gatekeeping function Delaware's law was designed to serve.
- Under the Rules Enabling Act, a Federal Rule is valid so long as it 'really regulates procedure' — meaning it governs the manner and means of enforcing litigants' rights rather than the rights themselves. Rule 8 easily clears that bar. The Court also reaffirmed that whether the displaced state law serves substantive purposes is irrelevant to this analysis: if the Federal Rule is procedural, it controls, full stop.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P. A. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (559 U.S. 393)
Reaffirmed as the governing framework for deciding when a Federal Rule displaces conflicting state law.
Reaffirms Hanna v. Plumer (380 U.S. 460)
Reaffirmed that a valid Federal Rule displaces state law even if that state law would otherwise qualify as substantive.
Distinguishes Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. (337 U.S. 541)
Rejected defendants' broad reading of Cohen as exempting all state 'preconditions to proceeding' from conflict with the Federal Rules.