Opinion
C.A. No. 02C-02-023
March 5, 2003
ORDER
This is the Court's decision on Defendant Edward C. Gill, P.A.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is granted for the reasons stated herein. I. Facts
Charles Palmateer ("Palmateer") filed a Complaint against Edward C. Gill, P.A. ("Gill") on February 21, 2003, alleging that Gill wrongfully obtained Palmateer's medical records from the Mid Sussex Medical Center ("MSMC"). Gill has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment contending the claim lacks merit. In support of his motion, Gill attached affidavits on behalf of himself and MSMC that indicate medical records were neither requested nor received by Gill.
In reply, Palmateer supplied the Court with a copy of a bill from Gill dated December 12, 2001, charging Palmateer $58.41 for "Mid Sussex Medical Center medical records; Palmateer, Charles." Gill asserts that this bill was sent in error and that its clerical records have since been corrected. Gill has submitted an affidavit to the Court to reflect the error and subsequent correction. II. Discussion A. Standard of Review
Summary judgment may be granted only when no material issues of fact exist, and the moving party bears the burden of establishing the non-existence of material issues of fact. Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979). Once the moving party meets its burden, then the burden shifts to the non-moving party to establish the existence of material issues of fact. Id. at 681. Where the moving party produces an affidavit or other evidence sufficient under Superior Court Civil Rule 56 in support of its motion and the burden shifts, then the non-moving party may not rest on its own pleadings, but must provide evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 56(e); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). If, after discovery, the non-moving party cannot make a sufficient showing of the existence of an essential element of his or her case, then summary judgment must be granted. Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 59 (Del. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 912 (1992); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra. If, however, material issues of fact exist or if the Court determines that it does not have sufficient facts to enable it to apply the law to the facts before it, then summary judgment is inappropriate. Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 470 (Del. 1962). B. Palmateer's Claim
Palmateer's claim is based upon Gill's alleged wrongful attainment of Palmateer's medical records. The facts before the Court show that Palmateer was billed by Gill for charges associated with obtaining Palmateer's medical records. Although Gill has admitted that the bill was sent to Palmateer, Gill represents that the bill was sent in error and has been voided. Additionally, Gill has asserted that no monies were collected from Palmateer as a result of this billing error.
Palmateer's claim does not rest on the improper billing by Gill but on Gill's invasion of Palmateer's privacy. The undisputed facts, as they have been represented to the Court, are that Gill neither obtained nor inspected any of Palmateer's medical records without Palmateer's permission. Thus, there is no factual basis to support Palmateer's claim. C. Conclusion
Therefore, for the reasons set forth herein, this 5th day of March, 2003, it is hereby ordered that Gill's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and costs are assessed against the Palmateer.