Erie Doctrine

Issues

Does a state law that requires an expert affidavit to successfully bring a lawsuit in some cases also apply in federal court?

Court below

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a Delaware law that imposes an extra pleading requirement for medical malpractice complaints applies in federal cases. Berk maintains that the Delaware law is incompatible with numerous Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is procedural, and therefore cannot be applied in federal courts under the Erie doctrine. Respondents contend that the affidavit of merit simply screens the merits of a suit without altering pleadings, which avoids any conflicts with the Federal Rules, is specifically contemplated by Rule 11(a), and should be interpreted as a substantive rule under Erie. The Third Circuit held that there was no conflict with the Federal Rules and that the Delaware law is substantive. This created a circuit split contradicting other appellate courts that refused to apply similar laws from other states. This case will potentially affect forum‑shopping incentives, plaintiffs’ access to courts, and healthcare litigation exposure.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.

Harold Berk (“Berk”), the petitioner, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Wilson Choy (“Choy”), Beebe Medical Center (“Beebe”), and Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital in the U.S.

Additional Resources

Adam Feldman, SCOTUS Policy Implications: Berk v. Choy, Legalytics (Aug. 04, 2025).
Duane Morris, U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Whether a State Malpractice Statute Applies in Federal Court, DuaneMorris (July 14, 2025).

Submit for publication

Read more about Berk v. Choy

Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Company

Issues

Whether a state legislature may prohibit federal courts from using the class action device for state law claims?

Court below

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates filed a class action lawsuit in federal court, arguing that Allstate Insurance Companyviolated New York law in failing to pay interest to policyholders. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that New York law prevented a class action lawsuit in this context, and the Second Circuit affirmed. This case concerns the application of state law in federal court under the Erie Doctrine, particularly whether New York class action law applies in federal court and whether it conflicts with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Shady Grove argues that Rule 23 is the comprehensive class action rule for federal courts, and that New York law cannot undermine federal court procedure. Allstate claims that state law applies because plaintiffs would have different rights in state and federal court. The case will address Rule 23 and the ability of states to restrict class action lawsuits.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Can a state legislature properly prohibit the federal courts from using the class action device for state law claims?

2. Can state legislatures dictate procedure in the federal courts?

3. Could state-law class actions eventually disappear altogether, as more state legislatures declare them off limits to the federal courts?

Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates (“Shady Grove”) provided medical care to Sonia Galvez for her injuries as a result of a car accident in May, 2005. See Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (“Shady Grove I”), 466 F. Supp. 2d 467, 469 (E.D.N.Y.