Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Culler v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc.

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

April 16, 2018

KIMBERLY CULLER, Individually And as Administrator of the Estate of NETTIE CULLER, VERONICA WHITE, and CLARENCE CULLER, Plaintiffs,
v.
BAYHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER, INC., d/b/a MILFORD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant.

          Submitted: April 10, 2018

          Francis J. Murphy, Esquire, and Lauren A. Cirrinicione, Esquire, Murphy & Landon, for the Plaintiff.

          James E. Drnec, Esquire, Lauren C. McConnell, Esquire, and Katherine J. Sullivan, Esquire, Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut & Klein, J*.A, for the Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          NOEL EASON PRIMOS, JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court are motions in limine filed by Plaintiffs Kimberly Culler, Veronica White, and Clarence Culler (hereinafter "Plaintiffs, " collectively), and by Defendant Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Milford Memorial Hospital (hereinafter "Bayhealth" or "Defendant"). This opinion sets forth the Court's decision on the motions following oral argument on April 10, 2018.

         Plaintiffs are suing Bayhealth for damages resulting from the death of Decedent Nettie Culler (hereinafter "Decedent"). The facts of the incident causing Decedent's death, according to Plaintiffs, are as follows:

         On July 21, 2014, Decedent was admitted to Milford Memorial Hospital for gastrointestinal bleeding. At the time, Decedent was immobile, and agents of Bayhealth were attempting to move her when they "banged her head against the wall." Shortly thereafter, Decedent reported headaches and seizures. Decedent sustained wounds and infections; was intubated, sedated, and diagnosed with acute respiratory failure due to neurological process; and became dependent upon a tracheostomy to breathe. Decedent died approximately six months later, on January 7, 2015.

         As a result of the above, Plaintiffs have advanced survival and wrongful death claims. Defendant denies certain of the above allegations, and denies that an act or omission of Defendant proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs.

         Currently before the Court are the following motions in limine: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Duplicative Expert Testimony; (2) Defendant's Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Roger Behar, MD.; and (3) Defendant's Motion to Exclude Rebuttal Expert Opinion of Roger Behar, MD.[1]

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Duplicative Expert Testimony

         Plaintiffs' motion contends that Defendant's experts Dr. Goldszmidt, Dr. Lineback, and Dr. Spillers are expected to offer duplicative testimony and that they should be precluded from doing so. Specifically, Dr. Spiller and Dr. Goldszmidt are both expected to testify regarding lack of causation, and Dr. Goldszmidt and Dr. Lineback are both expected to testify about the use of fosphenytoin in Decedent's treatment. Plaintiffs complain that Defendant intends to "bombard the jury with multiple doctors who will testify to the exact same opinions" and that this should be prohibited pursuant to Rule 403, due to the limited probative value of duplicative evidence. Further, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant' presentation of three experts to rebut the opinions of Plaintiffs' lone expert is prejudicial, as it may suggest to the jury that "plaintiffs' expert must be wrong." According to Plaintiffs, failure to grant their motion would permit "Defendant to use its seemingly unlimited resources to deny plaintiffs' meaningful access to the court and a jury trial." Plaintiffs offer no case law in support of this assertion, citing only to case law generally prohibiting duplicative testimony at trial.

         In response, Defendant posits that it has no intention of offering duplicative evidence at trial, and that each defense expert is a specialist in a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.