436 F.Supp.3d 540
D. Conn.2020Background
- Plaintiff Conroy Shields, a U.S. Army veteran, alleges the VA delayed diagnosis and treatment of severe back injuries, causing permanent harm; administrative tort claim was denied and he sued under the FTCA.
- The amended complaint initially named the VA; the parties agree the United States is the proper defendant under the FTCA and the Clerk was ordered to substitute the United States.
- The Government moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, arguing Shields failed to satisfy Connecticut’s medical certificate-of-merit statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a, which requires an attorney certification and an attached written opinion of a similar health care provider.
- Section 52-190a requires (1) a reasonable inquiry/good-faith certification, (2) that the complaint “contain” the certification, and (3) that the certification be accompanied by a copy of a detailed third-party medical opinion (with confidentiality provisions).
- The court considered whether the FTCA incorporates state procedural pleading rules like § 52-190a or only state substantive liability rules, and whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preempt such a state pleading requirement.
- Holding: the court ruled § 52-190a is a state procedural gatekeeping rule (not substantive liability), conflicts with the Federal Rules (Rules 8, 11, 12, 4), and therefore may not be enforced in this FTCA action; the Government’s motion to dismiss was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Conn. § 52-190a’s certificate-of-merit applies in FTCA suits | FTCA requires only state substantive liability rules; § 52-190a is procedural and should not apply in federal FTCA cases | FTCA requires applying state law so the Government is no worse off than a private defendant; § 52-190a must be enforced | Court: § 52-190a is procedural (a pleading/service rule), not a rule defining substantive liability, so FTCA does not mandate its application here |
| Whether § 52-190a conflicts with the Federal Rules (Rules 8, 11, 12, 4) | Federal Rules govern procedure in federal court; Rule 8 requires only a short, plain statement and does not require attachments; Rule 11 certifies factual support without requiring a third-party opinion | The statute can be treated as service/process or otherwise applied to preserve parity with private defendants | Court: Federal Rules control; § 52-190a imposes heightened pleading/attachment requirements that conflict with FRCP and therefore cannot be enforced in this FTCA action |
Key Cases Cited
- F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (FTCA directs courts to apply state law as the source of substantive liability)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015) (FTCA reiterates application of state substantive tort law for liability)
- Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1 (1962) (FTCA requires application of a state’s choice-of-law rules as part of substantive law analysis)
- Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (framework for when federal courts must apply state law in diversity cases)
- United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953) (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to suits against the United States)
- United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U.S. 543 (1951) (Federal Rules control procedural matters in federal suits)
- Burlington N. R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1 (1987) (test for resolving conflicts between Federal Rules and state law)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993) (Rule 8 rejects heightened factual pleading requirements)
- Gallivan v. United States, 943 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2019) (refused to apply Ohio certificate-of-merit rule in FTCA medical-malpractice action)
- Young v. United States, 942 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2019) (Illinois affidavit-of-merit requirement inconsistent with Rule 8 in federal court)
- Gipson v. United States, 631 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing substantive expert-proof requirements at trial from pre-complaint affidavit-of-merit rules)