Norman v. All About Women, P.A.
K14C-12-003 WLW
| Del. Super. Ct. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Amanda M. Norman sued All About Women, P.A. and Dr. Christine Maynard for medical negligence arising from a diagnostic laparoscopy on October 22, 2013, alleging a bladder perforation that required a second surgery and additional hospitalization.
- Defendants filed five motions in limine (including exclusion of certain evidence and expert testimony) and a motion for summary judgment; the court heard oral argument on September 22, 2017.
- The specific contested item here was the admissibility of plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Jeffrey Soffer, M.D., on the standard of care.
- Defendants argued Soffer’s opinion lacked foundation: he relied solely on the fact an injury occurred and did not cite literature, methodology, or explain how Dr. Maynard deviated from the standard of care.
- Plaintiff argued Delaware’s liberal D.R.E. 702 standard and contended Soffer identified specific procedural deficiencies and opined injuries of this type do not ordinarily occur absent negligence.
- The court reserved decision on Soffer’s testimony after the hearing and then granted the defendants’ motion in limine to exclude his testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Soffer's expert testimony on standard of care is admissible under D.R.E. 702/Daubert framework | Soffer relied on experience and identified specific procedural deficiencies; D.R.E. 702 is liberal and allows opinion evidence without exhaustive literature support | Soffer offered no reliable methodology or reliance on authoritative sources; his opinion rested solely on the occurrence of the injury, which would improperly treat such injuries as per se negligence | Excluded: Court found plaintiff failed to show Soffer relied on information reasonably relied upon by experts; opinion lacked foundation and failed the admissibility test |
Key Cases Cited
- M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513 (Del. 1999) (applies Daubert framework in Delaware)
- Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 906 A.2d 787 (Del. 2006) (Delaware’s adoption of Daubert-style expert admissibility analysis)
- Sturgis v. Bayside Health Ass'n, 942 A.2d 579 (Del. 2007) (discusses trial judge’s gatekeeping role for expert evidence)
- State v. McMullen, 900 A.2d 103 (Del. Super. Ct. 2006) (addresses reliability requirement for expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (Supreme Court standard for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
- In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) (factors for assessing admissibility and reliability of expert testimony)