SCOTUS Holds State Affidavit-of-Merit Requirements Do Not Apply in Federal Court
Majority Opinion Published: January 20, 2026 (Barrett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Jackson, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.)
SCOTUS Docket No. 24-440
Holding: State law requirements which impose different or additional requirements on pleadings filed in federal court are not enforceable if they conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even if the state law would qualify as “substantive law” under Erie R. Co. v Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). Thus a Delaware law which required the filing of an affidavit of merit with a medical malpractice complaint is not enforceable if a medical malpractice complaint is filed in federal court.
Facts: Harold Berk fell out of bed while on a trip to Delaware and was taken to a hospital owned by Beebe Medical Center. An X-ray revealed a fractured ankle, and Dr. Wilson Choy recommended fitting Berk with a protective boot. During the fitting, hospital employees forced Berk's leg into the boot, twisting his fractured ankle. Dr. Choy did not immediately order another X-ray but told Berk to keep weight off his ankle and scheduled a follow-up in two weeks. At the follow-up appointment, a second X-ray showed Berk's ankle was severely deformed in addition to being fractured, requiring surgery.
Berk sued Dr. Choy and Beebe Medical Center for medical malpractice under Delaware law in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Delaware law requires that medical malpractice complaints be accompanied by an affidavit of merit from a medical professional, or a motion for extension to file such affidavit. Berk obtained an extension but failed to secure an affidavit within the deadline and instead filed his medical records under seal.
The District Court dismissed Berk's lawsuit for failure to comply with Delaware's affidavit requirement, and the Third Circuit affirmed.
Key Appellate Rulings:
Delaware's affidavit-of-merit statute does not apply in federal court.
The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit, holding that Del. Code Tit. 18, §6853, which imposed an affidavit of merit requirement is displaced by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Rule 8 requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim" and implicitly but clearly establishes that evidence of the claim is not required at the pleading stage. Delaware's law requires an affidavit (evidence), creating a direct conflict. Further, Rule 11's statement that "a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit" unless "a rule or statute specifically states otherwise" applies only to affidavits from parties or attorneys, not third-party expert affidavits like those required by §6853.
The Court announced a framework for analyzing Federal Rule/state law conflicts.
When a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure answers the disputed question, it displaces contrary state law even if the state law would be considered substantive under Erie. The analysis is: (1) Does a Federal Rule answer the disputed question? (2) If yes, does the Rule exceed statutory authorization or Congress's rulemaking power? Not all State "preconditions to proceeding" are not categorically exempt from displacement - The Court rejected defendants' argument that all state preconditions to proceeding are consistent with Federal Rules, clarifying that Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) did not create such a categorical exemption. Rather, in Cohen, a state law rendered an unsuccessful plaintiff in a shareholder derivative suit liable for all the defendant’s expenses, including attorney’s fees, and as security for that potential liability, required the plaintiff to post a bond before proceeding with the action. The Cohen plaintiffs argued that the bond requirement was displaced by then-Rule 23, which governed shareholder derivative suits in federal court. Cohen held that there was no conflict because the state law and Rule 23 addressed different issues: The state law created a liability, while Rule 23 dealt with “disclosure to the court and notice to the parties in interest.” Id. at 555-556.
Justice Jackson's Concurrence
Justice Jackson concurred in the judgment but identified conflicts with Federal Rules 3 and 12 rather than Rule 8 as the basis for her conclusion.
Rule 3 conflict: Rule 3 states a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint, while §6853 requires an additional filing (the affidavit) to commence the action.
Rule 12 conflict: Rule 12(d) prohibits considering matters outside the pleadings when deciding motions to dismiss, but Delaware law requires dismissal based on the absence of an affidavit (a matter outside the pleadings).
