From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ellet v. Ramzy

Superior Court of Delaware, for New Castle County
Sep 29, 2004
C.A. NO. 04C-03-201-FSS E-FILED (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 29, 2004)

Summary

allowing the amendment of an affidavit of merit because the affidavit was equivocal as to whether the breach was a proximate cause of the decedent's injury

Summary of this case from Peck v. Orthopaedic Assocs. of Southerne Del., P.A.

Opinion

C.A. NO. 04C-03-201-FSS E-FILED.

Submitted June 4, 2004.

Decided September 29, 2004.


INTERIM ORDER


Upon Review of Affidavits of Merit

Upon motion by Defendants under 18 Del. C. § 6853(d), the court has considered in camera whether the affidavits of merit filed by Plaintiffs in this medical negligence case comply with subdivisions (a)(1) and (c) of 18 Del. C. § 6853. As discussed below, the sealed affidavits of merit do not comply with subsection(c) because the expert affiants do not opine that the breach of the applicable standard of care was a proximate cause of injury to Plaintiffs. The affidavit is equivocal.

Since 18 Del. C. § 6853 was amended, effective October 2003, no health care negligence lawsuit may be filed in Delaware unless the complaint is accompanied by an affidavit of merit as to each Defendant, and signed by an expert witness. As to each expert witness, the affidavit of merit must be accompanied by the expert's current curriculum vitae, showing that the expert is qualified under 18 Del. C. § 6854. Moreover, the affidavit of merit must state that there are reasonable grounds to believe that healthcare medical negligence has been committed by each Defendant. And, if the required affidavit is not filed, the suit shall be dismissed. Specifically, 18 Del. C. § 6853(c) provides:

Qualifications Of Expert And Contents Of Affidavit. — Affidavit(s) of merit shall set forth the expert's opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicable standard of care was breached by the named Defendant(s) and the breach was a proximate cause of injury(ies) claimed in the complaint. . . . (Emphasis added.)

Here, Plaintiffs filed affidavits of merit from two, statutorily qualified, medical experts relating to Defendants Chabalko, Rizzo and their professional practice, Pulmonary Associates, P.A.

Although Plaintiffs' affiants are statutorily qualified and they opine that Defendants Chabalko, Rizzo and Pulmonary Associates, P.A. breached the applicable standard of care, their opinions that the breach was a proximate cause of injury are equivocal. Specifically, they opine "that the breach from the applicable standard of care was a proximate cause of and/or was a substantial contributing factor to the injuries suffered by Plaintiff. . . ." It is settled, beyond need for citation, that Delaware rejects the "substantial factor" causation standard. Delaware steadfastly adheres to the "but for" standard of causation.

Culver v. Bennett, 588 A.2d 1094, 1096-97 (Del. 1991); Edwards v. Family Practice Associates, Inc., 798 A.2d 1059, 1065 (Del.Super.Ct. 2002).

As presented in the affidavits of merit, the experts' opinions leave open the possibility that the experts are only satisfied that Defendants' medical negligence was a substantial factor in the decedent's injury. The court is unwilling to allow this litigation to proceed, as the case stands, because the affidavits of merit are technically inadequate. The court must have unequivocal assurance that Plaintiffs and their experts are prepared to meet Delaware's more rigorous "but for" proximate cause standard.

For the foregoing reasons, the court will allow Plaintiffs twenty-one (21) days in which to amend the affidavits of merit in order to make them unequivocal. The court's leniency is appropriate because although the current affidavits of merit can be read as insufficient, they also can be read as meeting the statutory requirements. Moreover, the affidavit of merit requirement is new and we are still feeling our way along.

Cf. Bell v. Yalamanchilli, et al., Del. Super., C.A. No. 03C-11-046, Johnston, J. (Mar. 25, 2004) (ORDER) (dismissing for failure to file an affidavit of merit or a timely request for an extension).

Plaintiffs have twenty-one (21) days from this order's date in which to submit unequivocal affidavits from the same affiants. The court will review any submission, sua sponte, and issue a final order as to Plaintiffs' compliance with 18 Del. C. § 6853(c). If Plaintiffs fail to submit the amended affidavits as required, the court may dismiss the complaint without further notice or opportunity to be heard.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Ellet v. Ramzy

Superior Court of Delaware, for New Castle County
Sep 29, 2004
C.A. NO. 04C-03-201-FSS E-FILED (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 29, 2004)

allowing the amendment of an affidavit of merit because the affidavit was equivocal as to whether the breach was a proximate cause of the decedent's injury

Summary of this case from Peck v. Orthopaedic Assocs. of Southerne Del., P.A.
Case details for

Ellet v. Ramzy

Case Details

Full title:DEBRA ELLET, as Administratrix of the ESTATE OF JAMES ELLET, Deceased and…

Court:Superior Court of Delaware, for New Castle County

Date published: Sep 29, 2004

Citations

C.A. NO. 04C-03-201-FSS E-FILED (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 29, 2004)

Citing Cases

Peck v. Orthopaedic Assocs. of Southerne Del., P.A.

May 19, 2015); see also, e.g., Palacio for Mitchell v. Premier Healthcare, Inc., 2015 WL 13697654, at *1…

Hess v. A.I. Dupont Hospital for Children

See Spicer v. Osunkoya, No. 8C-04-218, 2008 WL 2955544, at *1 (Del.Super.Ct. Jul. 25, 2008) ("It is well…