Lauren Scottoline v. Women First LLC, 342 A.3d 373

Lauren Scottoline gave birth to J.S.S. in 2015; after a complicated delivery at Christiana Care Hospital, J.S.S. suffered hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), requiring intensive care and experiencing seizures.
J.S.S. developed speech and neurodevelopmental delays and was later diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and other related neurological disabilities.
The Scottolines filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Christiana Care Health System and Women First, LLC, alleging negligent care during labor and delivery caused J.S.S.'s HIE and resulting disabilities.
Their causation expert, Dr. Daniel Adler, a pediatric neurologist, opined that HIE caused all of J.S.S.'s neurodevelopmental and behavioral disabilities (including symptoms consistent with ASD).
The Superior Court excluded Dr. Adler's causation testimony as unreliable and inadmissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards, then granted summary judgment to the defendants.
On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged (1) the exclusion of Dr. Adler’s testimony, (2) exclusion of their life care expert (Masterson), (3) denial of an evidentiary hearing, and (4) denial of Rule 60 relief. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of Dr. Adler’s causation opinion under Rule 702	Dr. Adler's experience, examination, and the facts of the case satisfy reliability; literature not required under Norman and Wong.	Dr. Adler’s opinion lacked scientific basis and failed to rule out alternative causes; methodology defective.	Properly excluded: Opinion lacked reliable scientific basis and methodology.
Whether literature and differential etiology required	Norman/Wong allow expert reliance on experience/facts alone for admissibility; no literature/differential required.	Etiology requires reliable methodology, not just credentials; association ≠ causation.	Reliable methodology and scientific basis required for etiology; no exception.
Denial of evidentiary hearing	More process needed for full development of the expert’s methodology on the record.	Court had ample briefing, deposition, and record to decide Daubert motion.	No abuse of discretion in denying hearing; record was sufficient.
Admissibility of Masterson's (life care planner) testimony	Masterson’s opinions should be admissible independently of Adler's.	Masterson’s testimony derivative of Dr. Adler’s; inadmissible if Adler excluded.	Properly excluded as derivative; without Adler, no causation shown.

Norman v. All About Women, P.A., 193 A.3d 726 (Del. 2018) (expert may base opinion on training, experience, and case facts—literature not always required for reliability in medical malpractice)
Wong v. Broughton, 204 A.3d 105 (Del. 2019) (permissive approach to medical expert testimony, focus on reliability under the totality of circumstances)
Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 906 A.2d 787 (Del. 2006) (adopted Daubert admissibility standard for expert testimony in Delaware)