October Term 2025 · Docket 24-440
Does Delaware's Rule Requiring an Expert Affidavit Before Filing a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Conflict with Federal Court Procedures?
The dispute: Delaware law says a medical malpractice complaint cannot even be filed unless it comes with an expert affidavit. A patient suing in federal court in Delaware argues that requirement clashes with the federal rules that govern how lawsuits are started. The Supreme Court must decide whether that state rule can stand alongside the federal rules.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The patient's lawyer argued that Delaware's affidavit requirement conflicts with more than a half dozen Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He said the rule applies only to discovery in medical negligence actions and does not use the word privileged.
The doctor's lawyer argued that the patient identifies seven separate federal rules and manufactures conflicts with all of them. He said those conflicts are entirely hypothetical rather than real.
Justice Sotomayor questioned whether the Delaware procedure is totally different from what the federal rules set forth. She asked whether the federal rules require a concise and precise statement of a claim. She also questioned whether the affidavit rule addresses factual rather than legal sufficiency, and whether that is why it cannot be incorporated.
Justice Thomas questioned whether the case would have been handled differently if it had not been in Delaware or a state with a similar requirement. A justice's question is not a vote, and the argument is not a decision.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 31-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 31-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 39-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
A patient, Berk, sued a doctor, Choy, over medical care. Under Delaware law, a medical malpractice complaint cannot be filed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit. The case reached the Supreme Court after lower-court proceedings. The question is whether that state requirement can coexist with the federal rules that govern how lawsuits are filed.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 31-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 31-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 39-25
How the case got here
The case reached the Supreme Court after lower-court proceedings. The patient asks the Court to strike down the Delaware affidavit requirement as conflicting with federal rules. The doctor asks the Court to uphold the requirement and let the state rule apply.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 27-29
What each side wants
The patient's side, represented by Andrew Tutt, argues that Delaware's affidavit requirement conflicts with more than a half dozen Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He says the rule applies only to medical negligence cases and does not use the word privileged.
The doctor's side, represented by Mr. Yarger, argues that the patient identifies seven separate federal rules and manufactures conflicts with all of them. He says those conflicts are entirely hypothetical and that no single federal rule actually collided with the Delaware statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 31-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 31-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 39-25
What each side says
Justice Sotomayor questioned whether the Delaware procedure is totally different from what the federal rules set forth. She asked whether the essence of the federal rules is that they require a concise and precise statement of a claim.
Justice Thomas questioned whether the case would have been handled differently if it had not been in Delaware or a state with a similar requirement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 31-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 31-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 39-25
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the Delaware procedure is totally different from what the federal rules set forth.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the essence of the federal rules is a concise and precise statement of a claim. And Whether the affidavit rule addresses factual rather than legal sufficiency, which she suggested is why it cannot be incorporated. She also asked whether a claim must be legally sufficient.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-11
Why it matters
The outcome could shape how state-specific filing requirements apply when lawsuits proceed in federal court.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 31-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 31-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 39-25
What the Court decided
A Delaware law requiring a medical expert's supporting affidavit with a malpractice complaint cannot be enforced in federal court. Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a valid procedural rule, controls instead. A plaintiff's malpractice suit may not be dismissed in federal court simply because the required affidavit was missing.
The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 2, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 2, lines 1-1
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 3, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 3, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 31-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 31-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 39-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 31-27 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 31-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 39-25 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 39-25
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.
- Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.
- Revision 4 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 5 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 6 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.