Opinion
C.A. No.: 00C-03-260-FSS.
Submitted: April 3, 2003.
Decided: April 30, 2003.
Upon Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment — GRANTED
Jeffrey M. Boyer, Esquire, Snyder and Associates
Megan K. D'Iorio, Esquire, New Castle County Law Department
Robert C. McDonald, Esquire, Silverman McDonald
Dear Counsel:
This is an unusual case, concerning emotional distress allegedly caused by emergency personnel in an ambulance. Defendants have moved for summary judgment because Plaintiff has no expert backing her claim that the emergency personnel breached the standard of care. As explained below, taking the complaint into account, a jury could neither find liability, nor award damages without expert testimony on Plaintiff's behalf.
Plaintiff had an automobile accident on March 24, 1998. According to her complaint, the accident caused "substantial injuries, including head, neck, back and leg injuries." Emergency personnel were summoned and paramedics from New Castle County and the Christiana Fire Company rendered assistance. Plaintiff, a past victim of sexual abuse, was conscious and she told the paramedics not to remove her clothing. Nevertheless, as she was being taken to the hospital in an ambulance, a paramedic cut off her outer clothing, leaving her in her underwear. In the complaint filed on May 24, 2000, Plaintiff alleges that the way she was treated proximately caused humiliation, embarrassment and emotional distress.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment on several, alternative grounds. The court heard argument on April 3, 2003, and allowed further discovery. That mostly concerned Plaintiff's efforts to identify which paramedic actually did as Plaintiff claims. Beyond the dispositive issue concerning her lack of expert testimony that is discussed below, after more than two years of litigation Plaintiff still has not ferreted out the name of the paramedic who allegedly was responsible. That presents another obvious impediment to any recovery by Plaintiff.
The above notwithstanding, Defendants' most substantial and persuasive argument concerns Plaintiff's alleged failure of proof. The complaint contains twenty-four paragraphs, broken into a ten paragraph introductory section, followed by three, separate counts. The complaint's framing is important. For present purposes, the operative allegations are:
10. The removal of plaintiff's clothing was not warranted by the injuries suffered in the accident. Plaintiff was fully conscious during the entire sequence of time that she was under emergenc[y] care and the removal of her clothing under the circumstances was unwarranted.
13. The conduct described . . . constituted a breach of the defendants['] duty to render proper emergency care.
19. Defendant David Lux, Jr.'s action along with the actions of the other paramedics on the scene were in blatant disregard for the personal dignity and privacy of plaintiff and were not warranted in light of the injuries presented.
As framed, therefore, Defendants' liability turns on either of two similar premises: Defendants' conduct "constituted a breach of [their] duty to render proper emergency care," or Defendants' actions were "not warranted in light of the injuries presented."
In order to establish whether removing Plaintiff's outer clothing was warranted by her injuries, or whether Defendants breached the duty to render proper emergency care, Plaintiff must present expert testimony. A lay witness cannot establish what treatment, including the necessity for removing a patient's outer clothing, is warranted by an accident involving substantial injuries, including head, neck, back and leg injuries. Similarly, a lay witness cannot establish the duty of care for paramedics treating a patient who had just sustained substantial injuries.
Del. C. Ann. tit. 18, § 6853 (1999).
Del. C. Ann. tit. 18, § 6854 (1999 Supp. 2002).
Id.
Plaintiff has had years to put together her case and she does not intend to offer expert testimony. The court understands that she probably plans to testify about what the paramedics did and ask the jury to decide whether they behaved reasonably under the circumstances. The complaint, however, accuses Defendants of providing inappropriate and substandard emergency care. Without expert testimony about the standards for emergency personnel under the circumstances presented, there is a failure of proof. A jury cannot decide whether it was reasonable for a paramedic to remove the outer clothing of a person with Plaintiff's apparent injuries as they rushed, in an ambulance, to a hospital. The court also notes, in closing and only in passing, that even if Plaintiff could identify the offending paramedic and even if she could establish liability without an emergency care expert, without another expert to tie her history of abuse to what allegedly happened in the ambulance, her damage claim would be limited to the embarrassment of being seen in her underwear by a paramedic. Again, a jury cannot assess Plaintiff's psychological condition based only on her self-description.
Burkhart v. Davis, 602 A.2d 56 (Del. 1991).
Taking Plaintiff's version of the case as true, it is easy to appreciate that she was aggravated, embarrassed and upset by what happened. Even so, the verdict cannot turn merely on the Plaintiff's and the jury's lay opinions about how the paramedics should have treated Plaintiff in the ambulance. Someone with expertise about these matters must testify. Plaintiff is not prepared to offer that essential, expert testimony. And so, she cannot establish liability.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.