Mary Mullins, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Billy Mullins v. Arden Acob, 2023-CA-1490

Billy Mullins, a patient with multiple serious health conditions, was hospitalized and received care from various providers across several facilities, ultimately passing away due to sepsis and multiorgan failure.
Mary Mullins, Billy’s widow and administrator of his estate, brought a medical malpractice suit against numerous individuals and entities, alleging negligent care led to his death.
The complaint and discovery responses were broad, lacking specific allegations or details as to which providers breached the standard of care or how.
Mullins failed to make timely and adequate expert disclosures; when submitted, most expert reports were generic and non-specific to individual providers, except for one hospitalist group.
The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants, holding that Mullins’s evidence was inadequate to establish medical negligence or causation, due to the lack of detailed and timely expert testimony.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed both the sufficiency of expert disclosures and the propriety of summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Expert Testimony	Expert disclosures were adequate; created factual dispute	Disclosures were late and generic, not specific to each defendant	Affirmed summary judgment for most, except reversed as to Hospitalists
Requirement for Specific Allegations per Defendant	"All defendants" language is enough in expert reports	Each defendant must be addressed specifically for breach and causation	Court: Must be specific to each; broad statements are insufficient
Defendants’ Duty to Depose Experts	Defendants should have deposed experts before SJ	No such duty; plaintiff must provide sufficient disclosures first	Court: No obligation for defendants to depose in face of inadequate disclosure
Effect of Missed Court Deadlines	Extension granted; expert reports still filed before hearing	Failure to meet deadline is grounds for summary judgment	Deadline not strictly enforced after extension, but content still inadequate

Andrew v. Begley, 203 S.W.3d 165 (Ky. App. 2006) (Standard for summary judgment in medical negligence cases)
Blankenship v. Collier, 302 S.W.3d 665 (Ky. 2010) (Need for expert testimony to establish breach of standard of care)
Love v. Walker, 423 S.W.3d 751 (Ky. 2014) (Summary judgment standard and adequate time for discovery)
Meade v. Dvorak, 571 S.W.3d 585 (Ky. App. 2018) (General expert conclusions inadequate for summary judgment)
Savage v. Three Rivers Med. Ctr., 390 S.W.3d 104 (Ky. 2012) (Need for expert opinion specific to defendant provider)
CertainTeed Corp. v. Dexter, 330 S.W.3d 64 (Ky. 2010) (Specific causation required for each defendant)