Jerome Feinstein v. Massachusetts General Hospital

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that medical malpractice claims under Massachusetts law that are in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction must be referred to a medical malpractice tribunal
• stating that Erie policies requiring adherence to state door-closing statutes likewise require a federal court to apply state-created administrative limitations on rights to recovery
• noting that “[f]ailing to apply the requirements of [medical panel review statutes] in malpractice actions brought in the federal court would encourage forum-shopping by out-of-state plaintiffs . . . wishing to avoid the screening procedure.”
• “This difference in the procedure by which the statutory liability is determined should not lead to a different result.”
• same No. 15‐1539 Page 4 result for similar Massachusetts law
• “No ouster of federal jurisdiction results when, by reason of the policies expressed in Erie, a federal court requires that a state’s rule barring an action from proceeding in its courts must be applied to bar the action from the federal court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).