ANDREW v. DEPANI-SPARKES
2017 OK 42
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Parents (Brandon and Danielle Andrew) sued medical providers after their child Briana suffered a permanent brachial plexus injury at birth; claims included alleged negligent physician delivery techniques and negligent nursing administration of Pitocin at Mercy Health Center.
- Mercy Health Center 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(s).
- The trial judge granted Mercy’s partial summary adjudication (stating plaintiffs had no expert proof of causation) by email/journal entry before holding the scheduled Daubert hearing; the judge then heard and granted Mercy’s Daubert motion the next day.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider with an expert affidavit attached; the court later entered an amended order certifying the Mercy judgment as final under 12 O.S. § 994 and stayed further proceedings pending appeal.
- The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the court of appeals opinion, reversed the summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability under 12 O.S. § 994 | Mercy’s adjudication is a separate, final claim and appealable | The claims derive from the same transaction so adjudication is not separately appealable | Court exercised jurisdiction: the judgment resolved all claims against Mercy and § 994 certification made it appealable |
| Consideration of materials filed after summary adjudication (motion to reconsider) | Court should consider the affidavit and other attached material to show a factual dispute on causation | Post-judgment submissions cannot be used to oppose a summary judgment (District Ct. Rule 13 and prior precedent) | The motion to reconsider of an interlocutory ruling is permissible; the appellate record must include the materials relied on by the trial court, and plaintiffs’ summary filings did raise a fact question on causation |
| Use of a Daubert ruling to support an earlier summary judgment | Plaintiffs: Daubert ruling came later and cannot retroactively validate an earlier grant of summary judgment | Mercy: Daubert exclusion supports that plaintiffs had no admissible causation evidence | Court: A Daubert adjudication obtained after a summary judgment cannot be applied retroactively to justify a prior summary adjudication; sua sponte exclusion without notice is reversible if used to grant summary judgment |
| Sufficiency of expert evidence on causation | Plaintiffs: depositions and expert opinions (including that excessive traction and Pitocin-related contractions contributed to injury) raised a triable issue of fact | Mercy: plaintiffs failed to produce admissible expert proof that Mercy’s nursing acts directly caused the injury | Held: Plaintiffs’ summary-judgment materials were sufficient to present a genuine issue of material fact on causation; summary judgment was reversed and remanded |
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 at admissibility stage)
- Reeds v. Walker, 157 P.3d 100 (Okla. 2006) (de novo review of summary adjudication; denial of new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Christian v. Gray, 65 P.3d 591 (Okla. 2003) (Daubert analysis and review of evidentiary rulings)
- Jahn v. Equine Servs., 233 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2000) (sua sponte Daubert exclusion before notice is infirm when used to grant summary judgment)
- House v. Town of Dickson, 193 P.3d 964 (Okla. 2007) (partial summary adjudication remains within trial court control until made final)
- LCR, Inc. v. Linwood Props., 918 P.2d 1388 (Okla. 1996) (motion to reconsider an interlocutory partial summary adjudication is not the functional equivalent of a motion for new trial)