Opinion
C.A. No. 08C-01-314 MMJ.
Submitted: September 17, 2008.
Decided: November 18, 2008.
Upon Defendant's Motion for Reargument Pursuant to Rule 60 .
Denied.
James P. Hall, Esquire, Phillips, Goldman Spence, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Amy A. Quinlan, Esquire, Morris James LLP., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant.
ORDER
1. By Order dated August 7, 2008, the Court found, inter alia, that the affidavit of merit filed under seal by plaintiff: sets forth the medical expert's opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that specifically enumerated breaches by St. Francis Hospital proximately caused the injuries claimed in the complaint; and that the expert witness is board-certified in Internal Medicine. Therefore, the Court concluded that the affidavit of merit complies with sections 6853(a)(1) and (c) of title 18 of the Delaware Code.
2. Defendant filed a Motion for Reargument. The Motion contends that the affidavit is insufficient as to any healthcare providers who are not internists. Plaintiff has not specifically claimed negligence against healthcare providers other than internists. However, plaintiff alleges negligence generally against the hospital based on agency.
3. The purpose of reargument is to permit reconsideration of findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment of law. Reargument usually will be denied unless the moving party demonstrates that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision. "A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court."
Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969).
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Nix, 2002 WL 356371 (Del Super.); Whitsett v. Capital School District, Del. Super., C.A. No. 97C-04-032, Vaughn, J. (Jan. 28, 1999); Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., Del. Super., C.A. No. 88-JA-118, Ridgeley, P.J. (Jan. 14, 1994).
5. In the Motion for Reargument, Defendant failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision.
6. However, Defendant's contention is valid. The affidavit of merit cannot be used by plaintiff as a basis for pursuing any breach of a standard of care, other than for healthcare providers practicing in a field of medicine which is the same or similar to internal medicine. Nevertheless, Defendant's argument is not ripe for determination. Plaintiff has not attempted to assert negligent acts other than those of healthcare providers in the field of internal medicine. Should Plaintiff do so, Defendant may make whatever application to the Court it deems appropriate.
THEREFORE, Defendant's Motion for Reargument is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.