Sandra Albright v. Carl Christensen
24 F.4th 1039
| 6th Cir. | 2022Background
- Sandra Albright (Ohio) sought in‑patient opioid‑addiction treatment from Dr. Carl Christensen (Michigan); after receiving hydromorphone, phenobarbital, and two doses of Suboxone she suffered severe physical and emotional injuries and sued in federal court under diversity jurisdiction.
- Albright pleaded negligence; defendants moved to dismiss arguing the claim is medical malpractice and Michigan law requires a presuit notice (§600.2912b) and an affidavit of merit (§600.2912d).
- The district court held the claim was medical malpractice, concluded the affidavit‑of‑merit did not apply in federal court but that Michigan’s presuit‑notice did, and dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to give presuit notice.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit treated the dismissal as a Rule 12(b)(6) decision and reviewed de novo.
- The Sixth Circuit majority concluded the claim is medical malpractice but held Michigan’s affidavit‑of‑merit and presuit‑notice requirements conflict with the Federal Rules (Rules 3, 8, 9, 11, and 12) and therefore do not apply in federal diversity cases; it reversed and remanded.
- Judge Siler concurred in part (affidavit ruling) and dissented in part (would have applied Michigan’s presuit‑notice as substantive state law under Erie/Hanna).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Nature of claim: negligence vs. medical malpractice | Albright labels claims as ordinary negligence | Christensen: substance shows medical‑malpractice (professional relationship; medical judgment issues) | Claim sounds in medical malpractice under Michigan law |
| 2) Applicability of Michigan affidavit‑of‑merit (§600.2912d) in federal court | Federal pleading rules govern; no affidavit required with complaint | Michigan statute requires affidavit of merit with complaint | Conflicts with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 9, 11, 12; federal rules control—state affidavit requirement does not apply in federal court |
| 3) Applicability of Michigan presuit‑notice (§600.2912b) in federal court | Rule 3 and other Federal Rules govern commencement; presuit notice conflicts with federal pleading scheme | Michigan: presuit notice is prerequisite to commence malpractice action and should apply | Conflicts with Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (and 8, 9, 11, 12); under Hanna/Shady Grove and the REA federal rules control—presuit notice does not apply in federal court (Siler J. dissents on this point) |
Key Cases Cited
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (establishes Erie doctrine—federal courts apply state substantive law in diversity cases)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) (framework for when federal procedural rules displace conflicting state rules)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (Rules Enabling Act analysis and when Federal Rules may alter state law application)
- Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740 (1980) (distinguishes state rules about commencement for statute‑of‑limitations purposes from procedural Federal Rules)
- Burlington N. R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1 (1987) (assesses whether federal rule’s scope directly conflicts with state law)
- Gallivan v. United States, 943 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2019) (Sixth Circuit held federal pleading rules preclude state affidavit‑of‑merit requirement)
- Pledger v. Lynch, 5 F.4th 511 (4th Cir. 2021) (held West Virginia pre‑suit and certificate‑of‑merit requirements conflict with Federal Rules; used as persuasive authority here)