Norman v. All About Women, P.A.
193 A.3d 726
| Del. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Amanda M. Norman underwent a diagnostic laparoscopy by Dr. Christine Maynard on Oct. 22, 2013 and thereafter experienced severe pain and weakness; a subsequent operation at Union Hospital found a ruptured bladder attributed to the laparoscopy.
- Norman sued Dr. Maynard and her practice for medical negligence, alleging the bladder was perforated during placement of a secondary trocar and that the injury was not recognized or treated intraoperatively.
- Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Jeffrey Soffer (board-certified OB/GYN), opined the bladder was injured by a secondary trocar placed without direct visualization and that the surgeon failed to adequately inspect the site before closing.
- Defendants moved to exclude Dr. Soffer’s testimony under D.R.E. 702/Daubert, arguing his opinion rested merely on the fact an injury occurred and he cited no medical literature or peer-reviewed sources.
- The Superior Court excluded Soffer’s testimony as not “based on information reasonably relied upon by experts” and granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding Soffer’s opinions were based on admissible facts (medical records and depositions) and his experience applied to those facts satisfied the admissibility standards; the exclusion and summary judgment were reversed and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony under D.R.E. 702 | Soffer is qualified by training and experience to opine on standard of care and applied his experience to the case facts | Soffer relied only on the occurrence of an injury and cited no literature; opinion is unreliable under Daubert/D.R.E. 702/703 | Reversed: admissible. Soffer relied on medical records/depositions and applied reliable methods/experience to facts, satisfying D.R.E. 702/703 |
| Whether expert must cite medical literature or peer‑reviewed support | Not required; an expert may base opinion on facts and professional experience reasonably relied upon in the field | Literature/peer review required to show reliability and consistency with other experts | Court: literature may help but is not required; reliance on case facts and expertise is sufficient for admissibility |
| Whether an unfavorable outcome alone permits negligence inference | Soffer’s opinion is based on analysis of circumstances (trocar placement, inspection), not mere speculation from bad outcome | Defendants contend opinion rests solely on bad outcome, which cannot alone show negligence | Court: No presumption of negligence from result, but expert analyzed facts (trocar injury indicators, inspection failures); thus opinion is more than outcome‑only speculation |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment after expert exclusion | Norman: exclusion was erroneous so summary judgment should be vacated | Defendants: exclusion supported summary judgment for lack of admissible expert proof | Court: exclusion erroneous; summary judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (guides admissibility of expert scientific testimony under Rule 702)
- Brown v. United Water Del., Inc., 3 A.3d 272 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 906 A.2d 787 (use of Daubert factors in Delaware jurisprudence)
- Pavey v. Kalish, 3 A.3d 1098 (preference for admitting expert evidence that assists the trier of fact)
- Balan v. Horner, 706 A.2d 518 (expert opinion based on case‑specific analysis, not merely adverse outcome)