396 P.3d 210
Okla.2017Background
- Parents (Brandon and Danielle Andrew) sued medical providers after their child suffered a permanent brachial plexus injury at birth, alleging negligence by the delivering physician and by Mercy Health Center's nursing staff (overuse of Pitocin).
- Mercy moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs lacked expert proof that Mercy's nursing staff directly caused the injury; Mercy also filed a Daubert motion challenging plaintiffs' causation expert.
- The trial court granted Mercy's summary judgment by email/journal entry before holding the scheduled Daubert hearing; the next day the court heard and later granted Mercy's Daubert motion.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider with an expert affidavit; the trial court denied reconsideration, certified the order under 12 O.S. § 994, and stayed proceedings for appeal.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the summary judgment, holding plaintiffs had presented evidence sufficient to create a factual dispute on causation and that a later Daubert ruling cannot be retroactively used to support an earlier summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mercy was entitled to summary judgment for lack of expert causation evidence | Plaintiffs said their expert evidence (depositions and affidavit) created a genuine factual dispute that Pitocin use and attendant contractions contributed to shoulder dystocia and brachial plexus injury | Mercy said plaintiffs lacked admissible expert proof of causation and had a pending Daubert challenge to that expert | Reversed: plaintiffs' summary-judgment materials raised a question of fact on causation |
| Whether the trial court could rely on a Daubert exclusion decided after the summary-judgment order to justify the earlier judgment | Plaintiffs argued the court could not retroactively apply a later Daubert ruling to support the prior summary adjudication | Mercy argued the Daubert exclusion validated the lack of admissible causation evidence and thus summary judgment | Held: A pretrial Daubert ruling may not be used retroactively to support a summary judgment entered before the Daubert adjudication |
| Whether the plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider and attached affidavit could be considered post-summary judgment | Plaintiffs urged the court to consider the affidavit in the reconsideration motion to show disputed facts | Mercy contended the affidavit was new/contradictory (sham) and improper to supply after the summary ruling | Held: The motion to reconsider addressing an interlocutory partial adjudication was procedurally permissible; but Rule 13 limits relying on materials not timely presented at summary judgment |
| Whether the partial summary adjudication was appealable under 12 O.S. § 994 | Plaintiffs argued the judgment as to Mercy resolved all claims against that party and could be certified for immediate appeal | Mercy and Court of Civil Appeals disputed whether claims arose from same transaction or occurrence | Held: The order was properly certified under § 994; appellate jurisdiction existed (court also explains § 994 permits appealability even when claims arise from same transaction) |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial-court gatekeeping standard for expert admissibility)
- Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (U.S. 2000) (parties must present their best expert evidence in pretrial reliability contests)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony, with judge's discretion)
- Jahn v. Equine Servs., 233 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2000) (trial court erred by sua sponte excluding experts without notice when granting summary judgment)
- Reeds v. Walker, 157 P.3d 100 (Okla. 2006) (summary-judgment review is de novo; denial of new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)