SCOTUS Rules Affidavit of Merit Conflicts With Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

On January 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that could reshape how medical malpractice claims are handled in federal court.

In Berk v. Choy, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), the Court ruled that Delaware’s affidavit of merit requirement conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That means these merit requirements cannot be enforced in federal medical malpractice cases.

What Are Affidavits of Merit?

Many states, including Delaware and West Virginia, have enacted laws requiring plaintiffs to submit expert documentation before filing a medical malpractice lawsuit.

A medical professional must sign these affidavits or certificates of merit and show that reasonable grounds exist to believe negligence occurred. Legislatures adopted these requirements to deter meritless claims and reduce unnecessary litigation.

While these rules apply in state courts, problems arise when states attempt to impose them on federal cases.

Why the Supreme Court Found a Conflict

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only a “short and plain statement” of the claim to begin a lawsuit. At this early stage, courts are not permitted to weigh evidence or require expert opinions.

In Berk v. Choy, the Supreme Court held that Delaware’s affidavit requirement improperly heightened the pleading standard. That meant plaintiffs had to present expert support before discovery. Since federal procedural rules govern cases in federal court, the state statute could not stand.

The West Virginia Case That Set the Stage

The Supreme Court’s ruling closely follows a 2021 decision from the Fourth Circuit involving West Virginia law. In Pledger v. Lynch, 5 F.4th 511 (4th Cir. 2021), the court examined the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act. This requires plaintiffs to provide a pre-suit notice of claim and a screening certificate of merit.

The Fourth Circuit ruled that these pre-suit requirements conflicted with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when applied in federal court. By adding procedural hurdles beyond what federal rules require, West Virginia’s statute imposed an unlawful heightened pleading standard. This was the same issue the Supreme Court addressed in Berk.

What This Means for Medical Malpractice Claims

While the Supreme Court’s decision applies only to federal cases, its impact may extend to other claims. States with similar pre-suit requirements may face increased challenges, and courts may scrutinize whether these statutes can coexist with federal procedural rules.

Hendrickson & Long, PLLC Is Ready to Assist with Your Medical Malpractice Claim

Medical malpractice claims hinge on procedural strategy along with medical facts. At Hendrickson & Long, PLLC, we are closely following developments like Berk v. Choy and Pledger v. Lynch to help clients determine the best options for their claims.

When state and federal rules collide, experienced legal guidance can make all the difference. Reach out to us and learn how we can help with your potential medical malpractice claim.