Newborn v. Christiana Psychiatric Services, P.A.
N16C-05-047 VLM
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- Plaintiff sued the estate of psychiatrist Dr. Jorge A. Pereira-Ogan and his former practice group, Christiana Psychiatric Services, P.A. (CPS), for wrongful death and medical malpractice after Lindsay Ballas committed suicide in August 2014 allegedly after receiving Brintellix samples prescribed by Dr. Ogan.
- Complaint alleges three counts: negligence and negligence per se against Dr. Ogan, and Count III alleging negligence against CPS consisting of (a) direct liability for failure to supervise/monitor Dr. Ogan and (b) vicarious liability because Dr. Ogan was an employee/agent of CPS.
- Plaintiff pleads facts that Dr. Ogan used prescription pads bearing CPS’s name/address, that the Brintellix samples were CPS samples, and that CPS failed to instruct or monitor distribution of medications.
- CPS moved to dismiss under Superior Court Rule 12(b)(6), attaching IRS 1099s and other historical documents characterizing Dr. Ogan as an independent contractor; CPS asked the court to consider those documents.
- The Court declined to consider the IRS documents on the motion-to-dismiss (they were extrinsic and offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted), refused to convert the motion into one for summary judgment, and accepted the pleading-allegations as true for Rule 12(b)(6) analysis.
- Holding: the Court denied CPS’s motion to dismiss, finding Plaintiff’s direct negligence (failure to supervise) and vicarious liability claims against CPS reasonably conceivable and thus sufficient to survive dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of agency / vicarious liability | Alleged facts (CPS name on pads, CPS samples, supervision failures) make employer-employee relationship reasonably conceivable | Dr. Ogan was an independent contractor; thus CPS not vicariously liable | Court: agency is fact-intensive; not appropriate to decide on 12(b)(6); vicarious-liability claim survives |
| Scope of employment for alleged torts | Prescribing medication to Ballas was within scope of clinical practice | Even if employed, Dr. Ogan’s conduct was personal/sexual and outside scope, so no respondeat superior | Court: allegations concern medical prescribing—could be within scope; scope is a factual inquiry; claim survives |
| Direct liability (negligent supervision/monitoring) | CPS had duty to supervise employees/agents and failed to monitor distribution of dangerous meds | CPS contends Act prohibits interference in physician practice and argues no patient-physician relationship existed | Court: Professional Service Corporation Act does not bar negligence claims against a corporation for failing to supervise employees; direct-liability claim reasonably conceivable and survives |
| Consideration of extrinsic documents on 12(b)(6) | Plaintiff relies on complaint facts; extrinsic docs not necessary | CPS urged court to consider IRS 1099s and other documents to show independent-contractor status | Court: refused to consider IRS 1099s (they prove truth of content) and declined to convert to summary judgment; motion remains dismissal-stage inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gen. Motors (Hughes) S'holder Litig., 897 A.2d 162 (Del. 2006) (standards for considering extrinsic materials on a motion to dismiss and when to convert to summary judgment)
- Malpiede v. Townson, 780 A.2d 1075 (Del. 2001) (principles on dismissal standards and conversion to summary judgment)
- Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (Delaware pleading standard and that well-pleaded facts must be accepted on motion to dismiss)
- Fisher v. Townsends, Inc., 695 A.2d 53 (Del. 1997) (use of Restatement (Second) of Agency to determine servant vs. independent contractor)
- Wilson v. Joma, Inc., 537 A.2d 187 (Del. 1988) (application of Restatement § 228 and the dual-purpose rule for scope of employment)
- Cambium Ltd. v. Trilantic Capital Partners III L.P., 36 A.3d 348 (Del. 2012) (Delaware rejection of the federal "plausibility" pleading standard in favor of the "reasonably conceivable" standard)
- Winshall v. Viacom Int'l, Inc., 76 A.3d 808 (Del. 2013) (discussion distinguishing Delaware's pleading standard from the federal Twombly/Iqbal plausibility test)