Winn v. Clements
N15C-01-124 VLM
| Del. Super. Ct. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- K'Lynne Winn sued Charles Clements for injuries from a February 9, 2013 motor-vehicle accident (other related claims were settled or dismissed).
- The Superior Court set an August 31, 2016 deadline for plaintiff expert disclosures under Rule 26(b)(4)(A).
- On August 2, 2016 plaintiff's counsel emailed a disclosure identifying Dr. Conrad King as a treating physician who would testify about neck, low-back, pregnancy-related contractions, causation, and reasonableness/necessity of treatment; the email summarized the substance and bases of his opinions.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment (Dec. 2, 2016), arguing the email disclosure was insufficient and that Hill v. DuShuttle requires a formal expert report in personal injury cases, warranting dismissal.
- Plaintiff responded that the disclosure complied with the scheduling order and Rule 26(b)(4)(A); defense never moved to compel more detail before filing for summary judgment.
- The Court denied defendant's motion, finding the August 2 disclosure provided adequate notice of the expert's identity, opinions, and bases and that Hill did not impose a universal requirement of a formal, court-ordered expert report where the scheduling order did not demand one.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the August 2, 2016 email disclosure satisfied Rule 26(b)(4)(A) such that dismissal or exclusion is warranted | Winn: the email identifed the expert, stated the subject, summarized opinions and bases, and complied with the scheduling order | Clements: Hill requires a formal expert report in personal-injury cases; the email is insufficient to meet plaintiff's prima facie burden on causation/damages and justifies dismissal | The disclosure was sufficient to give notice of Dr. King's identity, opinions, and bases; dismissal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. DuShuttle, 58 A.3d 403 (Del. 2013) (reversed dismissal for failure to produce an expert report and criticized counsel’s cavalier refusal to comply with court orders)
- Sammons v. Doctors For Emergency Servs., P.A., 913 A.2d 519 (Del. 2006) (discusses disclosure obligations and the notice function of expert disclosures)
- Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467 (Del. 1962) (standard that summary judgment is inappropriate when material facts are in dispute)