## Facts

- Annabelle Legg underwent cystocele repair surgery at a Tennessee hospital on August 25, 1998, performed by Dr. Ash Chopra, an employee of University Urology, P.C.
- Legg alleged severe postoperative bleeding requiring multiple blood transfusions and repeated vaginal packing.
- Dr. Chopra removed and replaced packing during the hospitalization and discharged Legg on August 28 despite her complaints of weakness and continued bleeding; he then relocated out of state.
- Another physician in the same practice later removed and replaced packing; Legg sought emergency treatment in Virginia for continued bleeding, fever, and chills.
- Legg sued Dr. Chopra and University Urology, P.C. for medical malpractice, alleging negligent surgery and negligent follow-up care.

## Issues

1. In a federal diversity medical-malpractice action governed by Tennessee substantive law, does Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115(b) control the competency of medical expert witnesses under Fed. R. Evid. 601?
2. Does Fed. R. Evid. 702 supersede Tennessee’s medical-expert competency requirements, making the state licensure/locality conditions inapplicable in federal court?
3. If the plaintiff lacks a competent medical expert under § 29-26-115(b), is summary judgment for the defendant medical practice proper?

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for University Urology, P.C.
- The court held that Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115(b) is a witness competency rule and applies in diversity cases through Fed. R. Evid. 601.
- The court held that Fed. R. Evid. 702 governs admissibility and reliability but does not conflict with, or displace, state competency requirements.
- Because Legg’s proffered expert was licensed in Texas and did not meet Tennessee’s licensure/practice-in-contiguous-state criteria, the district court properly excluded the expert.
- Without competent expert proof on standard of care and breach required by Tennessee malpractice law, summary judgment was appropriate; denial of the motion to vacate was also affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- In civil actions where state law supplies the rule of decision, Fed. R. Evid. 601 directs federal courts to apply state law rules of witness competency.
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115(b) sets competency prerequisites for medical experts in Tennessee malpractice cases, including licensure in Tennessee or a contiguous state and relevant practice during the year preceding the alleged injury.
- Fed. R. Evid. 702 addresses whether expert testimony is admissible (qualification, reliability, and helpfulness) and operates only after the witness meets any applicable state competency requirements under Rule 601.
- Under Tennessee medical-malpractice law, plaintiffs generally must present competent expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation; absent such proof, summary judgment may be granted.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Tennessee’s medical-expert statute governs expert competency in federal diversity malpractice actions via Rule 601, that Rule 702 does not override those state competency limits, and that excluding a non-qualifying expert can warrant summary judgment when expert proof is required to prove malpractice.


Legg v. Chopra, 286 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2002)