Submitted: November 8, 2013
Upon Plaintiffs' Motions in limine:
Lisa C. McLaughlin, Esquire, Phillps Goldman & Spence, P.A., Attorney for Plaintiffs.
Joshua H. Meyeroff, Esquire, Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut & Klein, Attorney for Defendants.
ANDREA L. ROCANELLI, J.
This matter arises from alleged injuries sustained by Holly Mulrooney ("Plaintiff Holly") as a result of alleged negligence by All About Women of Christiana Care ("AAW"). Plaintiff Holly was a patient of AAW. On October 15, 2008, Plaintiff Holly contacted AAW regarding questions about having missed her menstrual cycle since May 2008. Plaintiff Holly had an appointment with AAW on October 20, 2008 and met with Claire Szymanski ("Szymanski"), a certified nursing midwife, during this visit.
On October 24, 2008, Plaintiff Holly returned to AAW to undergo an ultrasound of her uterus. On October 28, 2008, Plaintiff Holly received a call from AAW informing her that two prescriptions had been called into her pharmacy and that she should take those medications as prescribed. On November 6, 2011, Plaintiff Holly began to feel ill and complained of a migraine headache. On November 8, 2011, Plaintiff Holly complained of right-sided numbness and was taken to Christiana Hospital. She was diagnosed as having suffered a stroke.
Plaintiffs allege that AAW failed to properly screen Plaintiff Holly for contraindications to the medications prescribed, failed to discuss the risk factors involved in taking the prescribed medications, failed to provide adequate information regarding the medications and side effects, and failed to discuss alternative treatment options. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants' actions were the actual and proximate cause Plaintiff Holly's stroke.
The Plaintiffs have filed the following motions in limine to limit or exclude the testimony of the Defendants' experts. At the trial level, it is the role of the Court to perform a gatekeeping function with expert testimony.  The admissibility of such testimony is governed by Delaware Rule of Evidence 702, which provides:
If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Delaware has adopted the Daubert standard to determine whether an expert has a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline. Under this standard, the trial judge may consider the following factors: 1) whether the theory or technique has been tested; 2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; 3) whether a technique has a high known or potential rate of error and whether there are standards controlling its operation; and 4) whether the theory or technique enjoys acceptance within a relevant scientific community.
In addition to the Daubert factors, Delaware requires the trial judge to consider an additional 5-step test to determine admissibility of expert testimony. The trial judge must determine that:
(1) the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, ...