Annabelle Legg v. Dr. Ash Chopra, University Urology, P.C.
58 Fed. R. Serv. 951, 286 F.3d 286, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 5932 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In federal diversity actions, a state statute defining the competency of a medical expert witness based on geographic licensing requirements is a substantive rule that must be applied under Federal Rule of Evidence 601, and this state competency requirement operates in tandem with, and is not preempted by, the federal standard for expert testimony admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Facts:
- On August 25, 1998, Dr. Chopra, an employee of University Urology, P.C., performed a cystocele repair surgery on Annabelle Legg.
- Following the surgery, Legg suffered major blood loss requiring four blood transfusions and a four-day hospitalization.
- Dr. Chopra placed packing to control the bleeding, but Legg's condition of persistent bleeding and weakness continued, and she was discharged from the hospital on August 28, 1998.
- Shortly after Legg's release, Dr. Chopra moved from Tennessee to California.
- Other doctors at University Urology, Dr. Hatcher and Dr. Klein, subsequently treated Legg for the ongoing bleeding.
- On September 8, 1998, Dr. Klein performed a second surgery on Legg to determine the cause of the bleeding.
- During this second surgery, Dr. Klein discovered that the original surgery site had either not been sutured or that the sutures had come loose.
Procedural Posture:
- Annabelle Legg filed a medical malpractice action against University Urology, P.C. in the U.S. District Court, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- University Urology filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court refused to consider the testimony of Legg's medical expert, Dr. Bernard Mittemeyer, because his Texas license did not satisfy Tenn. Code Ann. § 29–26–115(b), which requires an expert to be licensed in Tennessee or a contiguous state.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of University Urology.
- Legg filed a motion to vacate the judgment, which the district court denied.
- Legg (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment and denial of her motion to vacate to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a federal diversity action for medical malpractice, does Federal Rule of Evidence 601 require the application of a state statute that sets geographic licensing requirements for the competency of expert witnesses, thereby precluding testimony from an expert who would otherwise be qualified under Federal Rule of Evidence 702?
Opinions:
Majority - Suhrheinrich, J.
Yes. In a federal diversity action where state law provides the rule of decision, the competency of a witness is determined by state law pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 601. The Tennessee statute, which requires medical experts to be licensed in Tennessee or a contiguous state, is a substantive rule of witness competency that is intimately intertwined with the state's standard of care. This state competency requirement does not conflict with Federal Rule of Evidence 702; rather, they work in tandem. A witness must first be deemed competent under the state rule via FRE 601, and only then is their testimony screened for reliability and relevance under FRE 702. Therefore, the district court correctly applied the Tennessee statute to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff's expert, who was licensed in Texas.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the Erie doctrine to expert witnesses in federal diversity cases, establishing a clear hierarchy between state competency rules and federal admissibility rules. It affirms that state legislatures can impose substantive limitations, such as geographic licensing requirements, on who is competent to testify as an expert, and federal courts must enforce these limitations under Federal Rule of Evidence 601. This holding prevents litigants from using federal court as a way to circumvent state-specific expert witness requirements designed to control malpractice litigation, potentially narrowing the pool of available experts and increasing the importance of state law in federal diversity actions.
