204 A.3d 105
Del.2019Background
- Plaintiff Monica Broughton sued Dr. Peter J. Wong and his practice for medical negligence after her son Amari suffered a permanent right brachial plexus injury during birth associated with shoulder dystocia.
- Jury returned a $3 million verdict for plaintiff (Monica individually and as Amari’s guardian). Defendants appealed adverse rulings on pretrial and trial evidentiary and jury-instruction matters.
- Central dispute: whether the injury was caused by excessive lateral traction applied by Dr. Wong (plaintiff’s theory) or by maternal endogenous forces during delivery (defense relying on the ACOG Monograph).
- Defendants sought to exclude plaintiff’s experts (Dr. Marc Engelbert on standard of care; Dr. Scott Hal Kozin on causation) as unreliable and impermissibly relying on res ipsa loquitur reasoning; they also objected to statistical testimony and sought an "Actions Taken in Emergency" jury instruction.
- Superior Court denied motions in limine and post-trial motions; Delaware Supreme Court reviewed admissibility of experts and exclusion/inclusion rulings for abuse of discretion and reviewed refusal to give the emergency instruction de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Engelbert (standard of care) | Engelbert reliably opined permanency of injury shows excessive traction and breach | Opinion is ipse dixit/res ipsa (mere injury), fails Daubert/Bowen, lacks factual basis | Admissible: opinion supported by medical sources, records, eyewitnesses; goes to weight not admissibility |
| Admissibility of Dr. Kozin (causation) | Kozin relied on his surgical findings and experience to conclude torn nerves from excessive traction | Lacks case-specific factual foundation, res ipsa reasoning, and relied on improper materials (failed Daubert/Bowen) | Admissible: based on case facts and clinical observations; challenges go to weight, not admissibility |
| Statistical evidence on rarity of brachial plexus injury | Statistics provide context and rebut defense theory that maternal forces caused injury | Statistics improperly invite inference of negligence from rare outcome (Timblin) | Admissible: distinguished from Timblin; statistics provided background, expert experience, and rebuttal value |
| Jury instruction: "Actions Taken in Emergency" | (Def.) Emergency instruction should excuse or contextualize actions during shoulder dystocia | (Pl.) Statutory medical negligence standard already accounts for emergency; instruction is inapplicable outside auto cases | Refused: medical standard (statute) already captures emergency context; instruction not legally required |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (expert admissibility framework)
- Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 906 A.2d 787 (Del. 2006) (Delaware application of Daubert)
- Timblin v. Kent General Hosp., 640 A.2d 1021 (Del. 1994) (statistical evidence highly prejudicial when used to prove inevitability of harm)
- Norman v. All About Women, P.A., 193 A.3d 726 (Del. 2018) (expert qualification and reliance on experience)
- Green v. Alfred I. duPont Inst. of the Nemours Found., 759 A.2d 1060 (Del. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)