Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In an interlocutory appeal of a medical malpractice action, the court considered whether a doctor owed a duty of care to a patient after the doctor referred the patient to a specialist. The patient allegedly suffered serious injuries as a result of the specialist's negligence. The court held that the referring doctor had no duty to the patient at the time of her injury and that the referring doctor's alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of the patient's injury. Accordingly, the Superior Court correctly granted summary judgment in the referring doctor's favor. View "Spicer, et al. v. Osunkoya, M.D." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against nursing home staff members alleging that defendants committed medical negligence that resulted in his father's death. A Superior Court judge dismissed the suit, stating that plaintiff's Affidavit of Merit failed to comply with 18 Del. C. 6853 because plaintiff failed to enclose a copy of the testifying expert's curriculum vitae. The court held that, since this error was procedural, a proper exercise of the trial judge's discretion would have permitted the later submission of the curriculum vitae. Therefore, the Superior Court judge erroneously dismissed the complaint. View "Dishmon, et al. v. Fucci, et al." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from plaintiff's complaint against DelDOT, alleging that DelDOT was grossly negligent in failing to observe its duty to maintain a safe roadway. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court improperly dismissed the complaint because the court relied upon an affidavit extrinsic to the complaint without affording him an opportunity for discovery. The court held that because the Superior Court considered matters outside the pleadings, it erred by applying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss standard instead of converting the motion to, and treating it as, a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motion under the Rule 56 summary judgment standard. View "Furman v. DE Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Delaware Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) appealed from a Superior Court order reversing a DHSS Administrative Hearing Officer's decision to place Madhu Jain on the Adult Abuse Registry for three years, because Jain had "neglected" a patient as defined by 11 Del. C. 8564(a)(8) and 16 Del. C. 1131(9). On appeal, DHSS claimed that the Superior Court erroneously concluded that DHSS had failed to show that Jain neglected the patient within the meaning of the two statutes because Jain's conduct breached basic, fundamental nursing standards. The court held that the facts did not support a finding that Jain committed an act of neglect, recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally. Therefore, the court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. View "Dept. of Health & Social Servs v. Jain" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that years of living with her husband, who worked around products containing asbestos as a maintenance technician for defendant, exposed her to asbestos fibers and subsequently caused her to suffer from bilateral interstitial fibrosis and bilateral pleural thickening of the lungs. Plaintiff appealed from a Superior Court order denying her Motion to Amend her household asbestos exposure complaint as futile. The court held that, because the allegations in plaintiff's amended complaint amount to a claim against defendant for nonfeasance, and the complaint did not allege any "special relationship" between plaintiff and defendant, her proposed amendments, if allowed, would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Price, et al. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co." on Justia Law

Sally Jackson appealed from a Superior Court order affirming the judgment of the Industrial Accident Board (IAB) denying her claim for total disability compensation. She claimed that both the IAB and the Superior Court erroneously denied her claim because her retirement did not bar her ability to receive workers' compensation benefits. The court held that the record contained sufficient evidence to support the IAB's decision to deny her total disability benefits where Jackson voluntarily retired for a reason other than her work-related knee injury, had removed herself from the job market without seeking reemployment or contemplating seeking it, and was enjoying her retirement lifestyle with her husband. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Superior Court's order. View "Estate of Jackson v. Genesis Health Ventures" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries she suffered when she slipped and fell on an icy parking lot on defendant's premises. At issue was whether the superior court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant where immunity, pursuant to Title 14, section 1056(h) of the Delaware Code, did not apply to negligence for failing to inspect the premises and failing to warn of known and existing dangers. Also at issue was whether the superior court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant where defendant waived, or should be estopped from asserting, section 1056(h) immunity. The court held that section 1056(h) provided defendant with immunity where there was no legal distinction between the failure to maintain a reasonably safe parking lot free of ice and snow and the failure to warn of a slippery parking lot. The court also held that defendant did not waive, and was not estopped from asserting, that immunity where the record did not reflect that plaintiff was aware of any insurance coverage, the record did not show that plaintiff relied on the conduct of defendant, or that plaintiff changed her position as a result of her reliance. Therefore, the judgment of the superior court was affirmed.