Norman v. All About Women, P.A.
K14C-12-003 WLW
| Del. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Ms. Norman sues Dr. Maynard and All About Women, P.A. for medical negligence from a 2013 diagnostic laparoscopy at Christiana Hospital resulting in bladder injury and need for a second surgery.
- Defendants move for summary judgment arguing Ms. Norman cannot prove breach without expert testimony from Dr. Soffer and that res ipsa loquitur does not apply in medical negligence.
- Court previously excluded Dr. Soffer's testimony under Rule 702 after applying Smith v. Grief's five-step test, ruling Soffer's opinion was not based on information reasonably relied upon by experts.
- Norman contends Soffer's testimony should be admissible regarding two potential standards of care and argues the exclusion affects only one theory of negligence.
- Court denied the motions to strike, clarified its prior ruling, and granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, holding that without admissible expert testimony, Ms. Norman cannot prove a prima facie medical malpractice claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility and scope of Dr. Soffer's expert testimony | Norman argues Soffer can testify on the two standards of care | Soffer's testimony is inadmissible under Rule 702 | Soffer's testimony excluded for both standards |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur applies to the claim | Res ipsa not relied upon; Soffer provides detailed negligence theory | Res ipsa generally inapplicable in medical negligence | Court's order relies on exclusion of expert testimony, not res ipsa doctrine |
| Whether summary judgment was proper without admissible expert testimony | Record supports negligence with expert corroboration | Without Soffer, no competent expert testimony exists | Summary judgment granted to defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56 (Del. 1991) (summary judgment standard; burden on movant to show no genuine issues)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Wooten v. Kiger, 226 A.2d 238 (Del. 1967) (summary judgment standards; evidence must support essential elements)