Harold Berk v. Wilson Choy, et al. (24-440)
- Term
- OT 2025
- Argued
- 2025-10-06
- Decided
- 2026-01-20
- Vote
- 9-0 for Berk
- Opinion
- Justice Barrett
- Majority
- Barrett, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
The case in brief
Facts
Harold Berk sued Dr. Wilson Choy and Beebe Medical Center in federal court for medical malpractice under Delaware law, saying they mishandled his broken ankle so badly that it became severely deformed and needed surgery. Delaware law says such a suit cannot go forward unless a medical professional signs an "affidavit of merit," a sworn statement backing the case. Berk was given extra time but could not find a doctor willing to sign one before the deadline. He argued that the Delaware rule does not apply in federal court because the federal rules for running lawsuits override it. The trial court dismissed his suit for lacking the affidavit, the Third Circuit appeals court agreed, and the Supreme Court took the case.
Question
Does Delaware's rule requiring a medical expert's affidavit in malpractice suits apply when the case is in federal court, or is it overridden by the federal rules of procedure?
Conclusion
In a 9-0 judgment, the Court ruled for Berk, reversing the lower courts and holding that Delaware's affidavit law does not apply in federal court. Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett explained that federal Rule 8 requires only a short, plain statement of the claim at the start of a case, not evidence such as an expert affidavit, so it controls instead of Delaware's law. She added that Rule 8 is a valid rule because it governs court procedure, no matter what purpose the state law serves. Justice Jackson agreed only with the result, writing that the Delaware law conflicts with federal Rules 3 and 12 rather than Rule 8.
Opinion of the Court
Authored by Justice Barrett (9,281 words total).
Volume 607 U. S. Part 1 Pages 187–212
THE SUPREME COURT January 20, 2026
Page Proof Pending Publication
NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.
BERK v. CHOY et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 24–440. Argued October 6, 2025—Decided January 20, 2026 Delaware law provides that a plaintiff may not sue for medical malpractice unless a medical professional attests to the suit's merit in an “affdavit of merit” that “accompanie[s]” the plaintiff 's complaint. Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1). Petitioner Harold Berk sued Dr. Wilson Choy and Beebe Medical Center in federal court for medical malpractice under Delaware law, but failed to provide the affdavit required by § 6853. Berk argued that § 6853 is not enforceable in federal court because it is displaced by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court dismissed Berk's lawsuit for failure to comply with Delaware's affdavit law. The Third Circuit affrmed. Held: Delaware's affdavit law does not apply in federal court. Pp. 191–200. (a) When a plaintiff brings a state-law claim in federal court, the court faces a choice-of-law problem: whether to apply state or federal law. The Rules of Decision Act directs federal courts to apply state substantive law unless the Constitution, a treaty, or a statute otherwise requires or provides. 28 U. S. C. § 1652. The Rules Enabling Act, which authorizes the Supreme Court to adopt uniform rules of procedure for district courts, provides for the application of federal law. § 2072(a). So, when a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is on point, it displaces contrary state law even if the state law would qualify as substantive under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64. The analysis is straightforward: The Court frst asks whether a Federal Rule answers the disputed question. If a Federal Rule does, it governs, unless it “exceeds statutory authorization or Congress's rulemaking power.” Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P. A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U. S. 393, 398. Pp. 191–192. (b) Here, Rule 8 answers the disputed question whether Berk's lawsuit may be dismissed because his complaint was not accompanied by an affdavit. Rule 8 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.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2). By requiring no more than a statement of the claim, Rule 8 establishes “implicitly, but with unmistakable clarity,” Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U. S. 460, 470, that evidence of the claim is not required. Rule 12 reinforces the point by providing only one ground
Page Proof Pending Publication
for dismissal based on the merits—“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” Rule 12(b)(6)—and prohibiting courts from considering “matters outside the pleadings” when evaluating whether a plaintiff has stated a claim, Rule 12(d). The court instead asks only whether the complaint's factual allegations, if taken as true, “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544, 570. Lower federal courts have sometimes tried to demand more information than Rule 8 requires for certain kinds of claims. This Court has consistently rejected such efforts. Delaware's law and Rule 8 thus give different answers to the question whether Berk's complaint can be dismissed as insuffcient because it was unaccompanied by an affdavit. Defendants offer a workaround: They rewrite Delaware's law. After defendants' edits, the Delaware law is no longer a pleading requirement but a free-foating evidentiary requirement that can serve as the basis for an early dismissal. But that requirement could not be enforced under the Federal Rules. Defendants concede that the absence of an affdavit is not grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). And Rule 56 already prescribes the mechanism for putting a plaintiff to his proof: a motion for summary judgment. Finally, defendants' argument that Rule 11's proviso concerning affidavits incorporates state affdavit laws like § 6853 fails because the proviso cannot be read to address affdavits from third parties. Pp. 192–198. (c) Because Rule 8 and § 6853 answer the same question, Rule 8 governs so long as it is valid under the Rules Enabling Act, which requires that Federal Rules be procedural rather than substantive. 28 U. S. C. § 2072(b). Rule 8 is valid under the Rules Enabling Act because it “really regulates procedure.” Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U. S. 1, 14. Defendants argue that determining whether a Rule is valid under the Rules Enabling Act requires also asking whether the displaced state law is substantive, but “the substantive nature of [a state] law, or its substantive purpose, makes no difference” to the analysis of a Federal Rule's validity. Shady Grove, 559 U. S., at 409. Pp. 198–200. Reversed and remanded.
Page Proof Pending Publication
Excerpt of 8 of 94 paragraphs. Full opinion available on the interactive page or in the official PDF.
Read the slip opinion (PDF) · Interactive oral-argument transcript · All tracked cases
This static summary is shown when JavaScript is disabled. The full interactive analysis loads above.