David Russell v. United States
670 F. App'x 116
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- David Lee Russell, a federal inmate in West Virginia, sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging malpractice by two prison health-care providers for treatment of elevated blood pressure.
- The district court dismissed Russell’s FTCA complaint without prejudice, concluding West Virginia law required expert testimony and Russell had not filed a screening certificate of merit under W. Va. Code § 55-7B-6.
- The district court’s dismissal rested on a conclusory statement that the subject matter required expert testimony, without identifying the factual basis for that conclusion.
- The Fourth Circuit reviews de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim and applies the law of the place where the negligent act occurred (here, West Virginia law).
- Under West Virginia’s Medical Professional Liability Act, expert testimony is generally required to prove medico‑legal negligence, but a narrow “common knowledge” exception permits lay jurors to decide noncomplex breaches or grossly apparent lack of care without an expert.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded because the district court failed to explain why this case did not fall within the rare common-knowledge exception, and instructed the district court to state specific reasons supported by the record on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to proceed with the malpractice claim | Russell argued his allegations could be decided without expert proof under the common-knowledge exception | Government argued West Virginia law requires an expert certificate and opinion for medical malpractice claims | Vacated and remanded: court must explain with record-based reasons whether the common-knowledge exception applies; current dismissal was inadequately explained |
| Whether denial of appointed counsel was an abuse of discretion | Russell requested counsel | Government opposed appointment | Fourth Circuit affirmed denial of counsel was not an abuse of discretion (but left door open to later reconsideration) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerr v. Marshall Univ. Bd. of Governors, 824 F.3d 62 (4th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing dismissal for failure to state a claim and treatment of pro se complaints)
- Cibula v. United States, 664 F.3d 428 (4th Cir. 2012) (FTCA requires application of state law where the negligent act occurred)
- Banfi v. Am. Hosp. for Rehab., 529 S.E.2d 600 (W. Va. 2000) (West Virginia rule that expert testimony generally required in medical malpractice cases and delineation of the common-knowledge exception)
- Totten v. Adongay, 337 S.E.2d 2 (W. Va. 1985) (describing the common-knowledge exception as rare)
- Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962 (4th Cir. 1987) (standard for appointing counsel in civil cases)