Most medical malpractice cases play out in state courts across the country. It's where the familiar rules apply, where local juries decide outcomes, and where most attorneys have built their careers handling these claims. But there's another path that sometimes opens up: federal court.
Federal courts operate under different rules, follow different procedures, and require specific circumstances before they'll even hear a case. For someone who's been harmed by medical negligence, understanding when and why a case might end up in federal court matters. It affects everything from how long the case takes to what evidence gets presented to who ultimately decides the outcome.
The reality is that federal courts have narrow authority. They can't just take any case that walks through the door. There are specific legal requirements that must be met, and if those requirements aren't satisfied, the case stays in state court no matter what anyone prefers.
When Can a Medical Malpractice Case Be Filed in Federal Court?
Federal courts operate under something called "limited jurisdiction." Unlike state courts, which can generally hear any type of case, federal courts only have authority over specific categories of legal disputes. For a medical malpractice case to land in federal court, it needs to fit into one of these clearly defined categories.
The first pathway is called federal question jurisdiction. This applies when the lawsuit arises under federal law rather than state law. In the medical malpractice context, this typically means cases brought against the federal government itself or federal employees acting in their official capacity. Think VA hospitals, military medical facilities, or federally funded health clinics.
The second pathway is diversity jurisdiction. This is when the person bringing the lawsuit and all the defendants are citizens of different states, and the amount of money at stake exceeds $75,000. A patient from New Jersey suing a doctor who lives and practices in Pennsylvania, for instance, might qualify for federal court if the injuries are serious enough that damages exceed that threshold.
The third pathway is removal. Even if a case starts in state court, a defendant can sometimes move it to federal court if federal jurisdiction exists. This happens more often than you might think, particularly when a defendant realizes the parties are from different states and the case meets the diversity requirements.
If none of these situations apply, the case must be filed in state court. There's no way around it.
What Happens When You're Suing the Federal Government?
The most common reason medical malpractice cases end up in federal court is because the lawsuit targets the United States government. This happens under a law called the Federal Tort Claims Act, or FTCA. Congress passed this law to allow people to sue the government for negligence, including medical malpractice, but only under very specific conditions.
The FTCA covers situations where federal employees, including doctors and nurses, cause harm while working within the scope of their employment. It also covers federally funded health facilities. Veterans Affairs hospitals are the most well-known example, but the law also extends to military hospitals, Indian Health Service facilities, and federally qualified health centers.
Say a veteran receives negligent care during a surgery at a VA hospital that results in permanent nerve damage. Or a service member suffers complications from a misdiagnosis at a military base hospital. Or a patient at a federally funded community health clinic experiences harm due to a medication error. These are all situations where the FTCA would apply.
But you can't just file a lawsuit right away. The FTCA requires something called an administrative claim first. Before anyone can go to court, they must submit their claim to the appropriate federal agency using a form called Standard Form 95, or SF-95. This form details what happened, who was involved, what injuries occurred, and how much compensation is being sought.
The agency then has six months to investigate. They might settle the claim during this period, or they might deny it outright. If six months pass without any action, that counts as a denial. Only after receiving a denial or waiting out the six months can someone file an actual lawsuit in federal district court.
Once the case reaches federal court, an interesting thing happens. While the case is being heard in a federal courthouse, the actual legal standards applied, the definition of the standard of care, the rules about proving causation, those all come from state law. Specifically, the law of the state where the malpractice occurred. So a case against a VA hospital in New York will be decided under New York's medical malpractice standards, even though it's in federal court.
Can Private Medical Malpractice Cases Be Heard in Federal Court?
Yes, but only if specific requirements are met. This is where diversity jurisdiction comes into play, and the rules are technical and often unforgiving.
For a private medical malpractice case to qualify for federal court based on diversity, two things must be true:
First, there must be complete diversity of citizenship. That means every plaintiff must be from a different state than every defendant. It's not enough for some plaintiffs and defendants to be diverse. If even one plaintiff shares citizenship with even one defendant, diversity is destroyed and federal court is off the table.
Citizenship isn't always straightforward. For individuals, it's based on domicile, which is where someone has their permanent home and intends to remain. It's not just where they currently live. Someone might rent an apartment in New York for work but still be domiciled in New Jersey if that's where they maintain their permanent residence and plan to return. For corporations and hospitals, citizenship is based on two things: the state where they're incorporated and the state where they have their principal place of business.
The second requirement is the amount in controversy. The damages being sought must exceed $75,000, not counting interest and court costs. In serious medical malpractice cases involving permanent injuries, long-term disabilities, or death, this threshold is usually met. But for cases with more limited damages, this requirement can eliminate federal jurisdiction entirely.
Here's a practical example. A woman from Connecticut undergoes surgery at a hospital in New York. The surgeon who operates on her is a New York resident, and the hospital is incorporated in New York with its headquarters there. During the surgery, a serious error occurs that results in permanent disability. The woman's damages, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, are estimated at over $200,000. This case could be filed in federal court because there's complete diversity (Connecticut plaintiff versus New York defendants) and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
But if that same woman had moved to New York six months before the surgery and established her domicile there, diversity would be destroyed. She'd be a New York citizen suing New York defendants, and federal court would no longer be an option based on diversity.
How Does Removal to Federal Court Work?
Sometimes a plaintiff files their case in state court, but the defendant moves it to federal court. This process is called removal, and it can only happen if federal jurisdiction exists. In practice, this usually means the case qualifies for diversity jurisdiction.
Why would a defendant want to move a case to federal court? There are several strategic reasons. Federal courts tend to have more standardized procedures. Discovery, which is the process of exchanging information and evidence before trial, follows uniform federal rules that some attorneys find more predictable. Federal courts also apply different standards for expert testimony, which can be advantageous or disadvantageous depending on the circumstances.
The removal process has strict requirements. The defendant must file a notice of removal within 30 days of receiving the initial complaint or other document that shows the case is removable. The case must meet federal jurisdictional requirements, usually diversity jurisdiction. And if there's any defendant who is a citizen of the same state where the case was filed, removal generally isn't allowed.
A plaintiff can fight removal by filing a motion to remand the case back to state court. They might argue that diversity isn't actually complete, that the amount in controversy doesn't truly exceed $75,000, or that the removal was procedurally defective. Federal courts take jurisdiction seriously, and if there's any question about whether they have authority to hear a case, they'll send it back to state court.
What Are the Procedural Differences in Federal Court?
Medical malpractice cases in federal court follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not state court rules. While some states model their procedures on the federal rules, there are notable differences that affect how cases proceed.
One significant difference involves pre-filing requirements. Many states require plaintiffs to file a certificate of merit or an affidavit from a medical expert before filing a malpractice case, or shortly after. These requirements are meant to prevent frivolous lawsuits by ensuring a qualified medical professional has reviewed the case and believes there's merit to the claim.
Federal courts generally don't impose these state-specific pre-filing requirements. There's ongoing legal debate about whether federal courts must honor these state rules under a legal principle called the Erie doctrine, which requires federal courts to apply state substantive law in diversity cases. Some courts have ruled that certificates of merit are procedural and don't apply in federal court. Others have ruled they're substantive and must be followed. The Supreme Court has a case on its docket that may settle this question definitively, but as of now, it depends on which federal circuit you're in.
Discovery in federal court tends to be more extensive. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for broad discovery, meaning parties can request large volumes of documents, take numerous depositions, and generally gather more information than might be permitted in some state courts. This can be both good and bad. More discovery means more information to build a case, but it also means higher costs and longer timelines.
Expert testimony is handled differently too. Federal courts use the Daubert standard, which comes from a Supreme Court case about the admissibility of scientific evidence. Under Daubert, judges act as gatekeepers who must determine whether expert testimony is based on reliable principles and methodology before allowing a jury to hear it. Some states use Daubert, but others have their own standards that may be more or less strict. In medical malpractice cases, where expert testimony about the standard of care is crucial, these differences can matter enormously.
How Does State Law Apply in Federal Medical Malpractice Cases?
Even when a medical malpractice case is heard in federal court, state law still governs most of the substantive issues. This principle comes from a foundational case called Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, decided by the Supreme Court in 1938.
The Erie doctrine establishes that federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law. In practical terms, this means federal courts use state law to determine what constitutes the standard of care, how negligence is defined and proven, what damages are available, and what defenses the defendant can raise.
So if a case is in federal court in New York based on diversity jurisdiction, the court will apply New York's medical malpractice law. New York's rules about what expert qualifications are required, New York's statute of limitations, New York's damage caps if any, all of these state-specific rules still apply. The federal court essentially steps into the shoes of a New York state court for purposes of deciding the merits of the case.
This is true even in cases brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the federal government. The FTCA specifically directs federal courts to apply the law of the state where the malpractice occurred. The only real exception is that certain sovereign immunity defenses that would apply to the federal government don't apply to private parties.
What federal courts do apply is their own procedural rules. How discovery is conducted, how motions are filed and argued, how trials are structured, these follow federal procedures. But the underlying legal questions about whether malpractice occurred and what compensation is owed are answered using state law.
This split between procedure and substance can get complicated. Some issues sit right on the boundary. Statutes of limitations, for instance, are generally considered substantive and federal courts apply the state's time limits. But procedural rules about how to prove when the statute of limitations was triggered might follow federal standards.
Should You File Your Medical Malpractice Case in Federal or State Court?
For most people, this isn't actually a choice. The vast majority of medical malpractice cases don't meet the requirements for federal jurisdiction and must be filed in state court. But when federal court is an option, there are considerations worth thinking through.
If you're suing the federal government, you don't have a choice. Cases under the Federal Tort Claims Act must be brought in federal court after exhausting the administrative claim process. There's no option to file in state court against federal employees acting in their official capacity.
If your case qualifies for diversity jurisdiction, the decision becomes more strategic. Some attorneys prefer federal court for its uniform procedures and predictable rules. Federal judges are appointed for life, which some believe leads to more consistent rulings. Federal courts also tend to move cases along more quickly than some overburdened state court systems, though this varies by district.
But state court has advantages too. Local attorneys often have more experience with state court judges and procedures. State court juries are drawn from the county where the case is filed, which might be preferable depending on the demographics and attitudes of that community. And some states have procedural rules that are more favorable to plaintiffs in certain situations.
Cost is another consideration. Federal court cases, with their more extensive discovery, can be more expensive. For cases with limited damages that barely meet the $75,000 threshold, the additional cost might not make sense.
The choice, when it exists, depends heavily on the specific facts of the case, the parties involved, where everyone lives, and strategic considerations that require experience and judgment. This is exactly the kind of decision that benefits from early consultation with an attorney who understands both state and federal procedure and can evaluate which forum offers the best path forward.
Not Sure Where to File Your Personal Injury Lawsuit?
Talk With a New York Personal Injury Lawyer at the Porter Law Group. Free, no-obligation, confidential.
Summing It Up
Federal courts play a limited but important role in medical malpractice litigation. They're not an alternative to state court in the general sense. They're a specific option that opens up only when certain legal requirements are met.
Cases against federal healthcare providers under the FTCA are the most common route into federal court. These cases require an administrative claim first, then proceed through federal district courts applying state substantive law. Cases between parties from different states, where the damages exceed $75,000, can also be filed in or removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
The procedural differences between federal and state court, from discovery rules to expert testimony standards, can significantly affect how a case unfolds. But the underlying legal principles, the definition of malpractice, the standard of care, these come from state law regardless of which courthouse hears the case.
What matters most is not whether your case is in federal or state court, but whether you have experienced legal representation that understands the jurisdiction, knows the procedures, and can effectively advocate for your rights. Medical malpractice cases are complex. The injuries are serious. The financial and personal stakes are high. The choice of forum, when it exists, should be made carefully and with full understanding of what each option offers.
If you've been harmed by medical negligence and you're trying to understand your options, the first step is finding an attorney who can evaluate your specific situation. Whether your case ultimately proceeds in federal or state court, what matters is having someone in your corner who knows how to navigate the system and fight for the compensation you deserve.
