Berk v. Choy | Case No. 24-440 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: Whether Delaware's expert affidavit requirement for medical malpractice claims conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when applied in federal diversity cases

Episode Overview

This episode examines Berk v. Choy, a case that started with a simple fall but could reshape how federal courts handle state law requirements across the country. The Supreme Court must decide whether Delaware's expert affidavit requirement for medical malpractice claims conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when applied in federal diversity cases, presenting a fundamental clash between federal procedural uniformity and state regulatory authority.

RoadmapOpening: A Fall That Could Reshape Federal Court Practice

• Harold Berk's fall from bed leads to medical malpractice case with nationwide implications
• Delaware's expert affidavit requirement vs. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
• 29 states with similar medical malpractice requirements creating potential patchwork

The Legal Framework: Erie Meets the Federal Rules

• Erie Doctrine (1938): Federal courts must apply state substantive law for state claims
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938): Uniform procedures for all federal courts
• Shady Grove Test: When Federal Rule and state law "answer the same question," Federal Rule wins
• Tension between federal procedural uniformity and state regulatory authority

The Shady Grove Foundation

• Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance (2010) background
• $500 individual claim vs. multimillion-dollar class action potential
• New York's prohibition on statutory penalty class actions vs. Federal Rule 23
• Fractured Decision: Scalia plurality vs. Stevens concurrence vs. four dissents

The Procedural Journey: From Delaware District Court to the Supreme Court

• Berk's five-month struggle to obtain required expert affidavit
• Dr. Raikin's refusal despite initially supporting Berk's case
• Multiple physicians declining to provide affidavits against other doctors
• Third Circuit's dismissal: affidavit "not a pleading" with "different purpose"

Petitioner's Three-Pronged Attack

1. Direct conflict with Federal Rules 8 and 9 under Shady Grove test
2. Uniformity concerns: Undermines federal procedural consistency established in 1938
3. Anti-circumvention: State requirements shouldn't allow end-run around federal pleading standards

Respondents' Three-Part Defense

1. Separate spheres: Delaware law operates as evidentiary requirement distinct from pleading rules
2. Erie compliance: Represents substantive state law that federal courts must respect
3. Limited Shady Grove: Fractured decision provides narrow precedential value

CASE SIGNIFICANCE

The outcome will likely determine whether federal courts remain faithful to both federal procedural uniformity and state substantive authority, or whether one value must give way to the other in the modern era of complex state regulatory schemes.

Key Legal Concepts Explained

• Diversity Jurisdiction: Federal court authority over cases between citizens of different states involving state law claims
• Erie Doctrine: Principle requiring federal courts to apply state substantive law in diversity cases while using federal procedure
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Uniform procedural rules governing all federal courts since 1938
• Expert Affidavit Requirements: State laws requiring medical expert certification before proceeding with malpractice claims
• Shady Grove Test: When Federal Rule and state law "answer the same question," Federal Rule controls
• Procedural vs. Substantive Law: Distinction between how cases are conducted (procedural) and legal rights/remedies (substantive)
• Forum Shopping: Practice of choosing favorable court jurisdiction for litigation advantage