A new U.S. Supreme Court decision may affect how Maryland medical-malpractice cases unfold in federal court.
When a medical malpractice suit is brought in federal court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, state substantive law still applies (federal law covers the rest). Maryland’s “certificate of qualified expert” requirement has generally been viewed as substantive and, therefore, applicable even in federal court.
In Berk v. Choy, 607 U.S. _ (2026) (No. 24–440) (decided Jan. 20, 2026), the Supreme Court held that Delaware’s law requiring patients to file an expert “affidavit of merit” (i.e., certificate of qualified expert) at the outset of a medical malpractice case does not apply in federal court because it directly conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8, governing the requirements for an initial filing.
Many states have adopted affidavit-of-merit statutes to screen weak claims and reduce rising malpractice insurance costs. The Court concluded that, in federal cases, those state requirements cannot be used as a mechanism to screen cases at the outset and grant early dismissal.
Why This Matters for Health Care Professionals
Although the Maryland courts have yet to interpret or apply Berk, this ruling may have important implications for cases filed in federal court, taking away an important tool in defense counsel’s bag for combating unsupported claims. In federal court, defense strategies may shift toward focused discovery and summary judgment motions.
Our team stays ahead of procedural shifts like Berk and adjusts defense strategies accordingly. If you have questions about how this ruling could affect a malpractice matter filed in federal court, our team is here to help.