ANDREW v. DEPANI-SPARKES
396 P.3d 210
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Parents (Brandon and Danielle Andrew) sued multiple medical providers alleging negligence in prenatal care and delivery caused their child’s permanent brachial plexus injury. Plaintiffs asserted both physician delivery conduct and hospital nursing conduct (excessive Pitocin) contributed.
- Mercy Health Center moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs lacked admissible expert proof that Mercy’s nursing staff directly caused the injury; Mercy also filed a Daubert motion to exclude a plaintiffs’ expert on causation.
- The trial court entered an order granting Mercy’s partial summary adjudication (April 23–24 email/entry) concluding plaintiffs had no expert evidence of causation; the court then heard and granted Daubert motions; later the court certified the Mercy order as a final § 994 judgment.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider attaching an expert affidavit; the trial court denied reconsideration and plaintiffs appealed; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed with a dissent; Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court reversed: it found plaintiffs’ summary-judgment materials raised a factual dispute on causation and held a trial court cannot retroactively rely on a later Daubert ruling to justify a summary judgment entered earlier (particularly where exclusion was effectively applied without notice as part of the summary decision).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / § 994 certification | Appealable: Mercy judgment was final as to that party; certification proper | Judgment not appealable if claims arise from same transaction/occurrence | Court had jurisdiction; § 994 certification was proper (appeal allowed) |
| Sufficiency of evidence on causation at summary judgment | Plaintiffs submitted expert opinions and deposition excerpts showing a disputed causal link (Pitocin → contractions/shoulder dystocia → brachial plexus injury) | Mercy: plaintiffs lacked admissible expert proof of causation; one key opinion was subject to Daubert exclusion | Plaintiffs’ summary-judgment materials presented a genuine factual dispute on causation; summary judgment was improper |
| Use/timing of Daubert exclusion to support summary judgment | Plaintiffs: Daubert ruling came after summary decision and cannot be retroactively used to justify it; exclusion without notice prejudiced plaintiffs | Mercy: its summary-judgment motion expressly relied on its Daubert objection; exclusion supports judgment | Court held a pretrial Daubert ruling may not be retroactively applied to support an earlier summary judgment; sua sponte or retroactive exclusion without notice is reversible where it is the basis for dismissal |
| Motion to reconsider / consideration of new affidavit | Plaintiffs sought reconsideration and attached an expert affidavit to show disputed facts | Mercy: affidavit contradicted deposition (sham) and should not be considered; Rule 13 limits new factual material after summary judgment | Court treated motion to reconsider as invoking trial court discretion over interlocutory orders; but summary judgment review is de novo and appellate record must show materials the trial court actually considered; new submissions post-judgment generally cannot supply the opposition omitted at summary stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (federal gatekeeping standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (2000) (parties must present their best expert evidence when Daubert objections are raised)
- Reeds v. Walker, 157 P.3d 100 (Okla. 2006) (summary adjudication reviewed de novo; denial of new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Jahn v. Equine Servs., 233 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2000) (sua sponte Daubert exclusion used to grant summary judgment is problematic where no notice given)
- Christian v. Gray, 65 P.3d 591 (Okla. 2003) (discussion of Daubert factors and review of evidentiary rulings)
- LCR, Inc. v. Linwood Props., 918 P.2d 1388 (Okla. 1996) (motion to reconsider a nonfinal partial summary adjudication treated as request to alter an interlocutory ruling)