AMANDA M. NORMAN, Plaintiff,
ALL ABOUT WOMEN, P.A., a Delaware corporation and CHRISTINE W. MAYNARD, M.D., individually, Defendant.
Submitted: September 22, 2017
Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert
Testimony of Jeffrey Soffer, M.D. Granted.
William D. Fletcher, Jr., Esquire of Schmittinger &
Rodriguez, P.A., Dover, Delaware; attorney for Plaintiff.
C. McConnell, Esquire of Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut &
Klein, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; attorney for Defendants.
WILLIAM L. WITHAM. JR. RESIDENT JUDGE.
the Court is the Defendants', All About Women, P.A., and
Christine W. Maynard, M.D., Motion in Limine to
exclude the expert testimony of Jeffrey Soffer, M.D. The
Defendants' Motion is hereby GRANTED.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
an action for alleged medical negligence involving a
diagnostic laparoscopy, that Dr. Maynard performed on October
22, 2013, at Christiana Hospital. Plaintiff claims that Dr.
Maynard perforated her bladder and then failed to recognize
the injury before completing the procedure, necessitating a
second exploratory surgery, unnecessary hospitalization and
February 7, 2017, the Defendants filed five motions in
limine seeking to: (1) exclude evidence, argument, and
testimony of Defendants' write-off and payment of medical
expenses; (2) limit the testimony of Kenneth Woo, M.D.; (3)
exclude postoperative statements of apology; (4) exclude
evidence related to pregnancy and unsupported injuries; and
(5) exclude testimony of Jeffrey Soffer, M.D. on the standard
September 22, 2017, the Court held oral argument on the five
motions. The Court issued a bench decision regarding the
first four motions, but reserved decision regarding the
exclusion of Dr. Soffer's testimony. This constitutes the
Court's decision on that matter.
Defendants seek to exclude expert testimony by Dr. Jeffrey
Soffer as lacking foundation because it is based "solely
on the fact that an injury to Mrs. Norman's bladder
occurred." The Defendants argue that Dr. Soffer did not
articulate what was required to comply with the standard of
care or how Dr. Maynard's actions failed to comply with
the standard of care. The Defendants contend that, under
Daubert, Dr. Soffer was unable to "provide any
explanation as to how he reached his standard of care
opinions." In addition, the Defendants argue,
"[a]ccepting Dr. Soffer's opinion would render every
trocar or thermal injury in a diagnostic laparoscopy Per
se negligence, a conclusion unsupported by logic or
Norman points to the liberal standard created in D.R.E. 702
and contends that the Defendants' motion in
limine is duplicative of their summary-judgment
motion. Ms. Norman interprets Dr. Soffer's
testimony as opining that "when a medical professional
exercising [the] reasonable care and diligence" required
under 18 Del. C. § 6801(7), "injury should
not occur." Ms. Norman further argues that Dr.