Richardson v. Christiana Care Health Services, Inc.
N18C-10-026 JRJ
| Del. Super. Ct. | Nov 19, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Tameka Richardson, as next friend of minor N.D., sued Christiana Care; the parties filed multiple motions in limine addressing expert testimony.
- The court issued a Memorandum Opinion (June 21, 2021) excluding certain causation/statistical testimony from Drs. Neil Silverman and Harold Wiesenfeld (including their opinion that in utero transmission risk exceeds 50% when mother is infected during pregnancy).
- Defendant moved for reargument (timely, June 28, 2021), arguing the court misapplied Timblin, ignored that the experts relied on more than six articles (and on experience/research), and that exclusion was overbroad and unfair.
- Plaintiff opposed, asserting Defendant merely rehashed previously rejected arguments and presented no new facts or law warranting reconsideration.
- The court applied Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e) standards and D.R.E. 702/403 (Daubert framework), concluding the proffered statistical evidence posed a substantial risk of jury confusion and unfair prejudice and lacked sufficient reliable support.
- The court denied Defendant’s motion for reargument; a separate limine will address Defendant’s contention about using evidence of the mother’s noncompliance for non–comparative-negligence purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reargument should be granted to revisit exclusion of Drs. Silverman and Wiesenfeld’s causation/statistical opinions | Richardson: Motion is a rehash; no new law/facts to justify reconsideration | Christiana Care: Court misapplied Timblin; experts relied on broader experience/literature; exclusion overbroad and unfair | Denied — movant failed to show the court overlooked controlling law or facts; prior ruling stands |
| Admissibility of statistical evidence to rebut causation (showing injury likely regardless of defendant’s conduct) | Richardson: Such statistics risk misleading jury and are unfairly prejudicial | Christiana Care: Timblin allows statistical proof to rebut nexus between conduct and injury | Excluded here — Timblin permits careful use but court found D.R.E. 403/702 concerns (risk of confusion, unreliable support) outweigh probative value |
| Whether exclusion was overbroad (excluding all causation opinions vs. only timing-of-transmission opinions) | Richardson: sought exclusion of timing-related causation testimony | Christiana Care: Court improperly excluded all causation opinions, not just timing-related ones | Denied — court found no basis on reargument to alter scope of its original exclusion |
| Whether evidence of the mother’s medical noncompliance may be admitted for purposes other than comparative negligence | N/A in this reargument (Plaintiff did not brief this) | Christiana Care: Such evidence could be used for other purposes (rehabilitation, alternative causation) | Not decided on reargument — issue deferred to be addressed in a separate motion in limine |
Key Cases Cited
- Timblin v. Kent General Hosp., 640 A.2d 1021 (Del. 1994) (statistical evidence may be relevant but risks jury confusion; must be carefully scrutinized under D.R.E. 403)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial judge is gatekeeper to ensure expert testimony is reliable and relevant under federal/Daubert framework adopted in Delaware)
- Perry v. Berkley, 996 A.2d 1262 (Del. 2010) (Delaware’s adoption of Daubert standards for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Crowhorn v. Boyle, 793 A.2d 422 (Del. Super. Ct. 2002) (expert statistical generalizations inadmissible where no basis for applying group statistics to the specific plaintiff)