Williams v. Cook

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: November 20, 2018
• Docket: N18A-06-002 ALR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

FREDERICK WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff-Below, ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N18A-06-002 ALR ) JEFFREY L. COOK, D.M.D., ) ) Defendant-Below, ) Appellee. )

Submitted: September 21, 2018 Decided: November 20, 2018

On Appeal from the Decision of the Court of Common Pleas AFFIRMED

ORDER

This is an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas on an Order granting

summary judgment to Defendant-Below. Upon consideration of the facts,

arguments, and legal authorities set forth by the parties; statutory and decisional law;

and the entire record in this case, the Court hereby finds as follows:

1. Appellant/Plaintiff-Below Frederick Williams (“Williams”) filed a

civil lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas on September 5, 2017, against

Appellee/Defendant-Below Jeffrey L. Cook, D.M.D. (“Dr. Cook”), making claims

for damages allegedly arising from a dental procedure that took place on October

27, 2015. 2. Dr. Cook filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that (1)

Williams failed to provide necessary expert witness testimony to support his dental

negligence claims against Dr. Cook; and (2) Williams did not properly establish an

allegation of fraud against Dr. Cook because Williams failed to plead the basis for

the claim with specificity. The Court of Common Pleas granted Dr. Cook’s Motion

for Summary Judgment on June 1, 2018, entering judgment in favor of Dr. Cook and

against Williams.

3. Williams appealed to this Court, arguing that the Court of Common

Pleas improperly granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Cook.

4. In response, Dr. Cook argues that this Court should affirm the Court of

Common Pleas’ decision.

5. When considering an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, “this

Court sits as an intermediate appellate court.”1 The appellate role of this Court is

limited to correcting legal error and determining whether factual findings are

“sufficiently supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical

deductive process.”2 The decision of the Court of Common Pleas granting summary

judgment is entitled to a de novo review by this Court.3 A decision granting

summary judgment will be affirmed if it appears from the record, in a light most

1 State v. Richards, 1998 WL 732960, at *1 (Del. Super. May 28, 1998). 2 Wright v. Platinum Fin. Services, 2007 WL 1850904, at *2 (Del. June 28, 2007). 3 Jackson v. Walgreens Corp., 2013 WL 2145938, at *2 (Del. Super. May 15, 2013).

2 favorable to the non-moving party, “that there are no genuine issues of material fact

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 4

6. With respect to Williams’s medical negligence allegation, the Trial

Court properly held that Williams failed to produce expert testimony necessary to

support a claim for dental negligence. Under Delaware law, when a party alleges

medical negligence, that party is required to produce expert medical testimony

detailing the applicable standard of care, the alleged deviation from that standard,

and the causal link between the alleged deviation and alleged injury. 5 Accordingly,

Williams was required to support his dental negligence claim through expert witness

testimony, but Williams failed to do so. Thus, the Court of Common Pleas decision

granting Dr. Cook’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the medical negligence claim

must be affirmed.

7. With respect to Williams’s allegations of fraud, the Court of Common

Pleas found that Williams failed to plead fraud with sufficient specificity to put Dr.

Cook on notice of the exact nature of the alleged fraud. Williams conceded that he

did not plead fraud with specificity. The Court of Common Pleas properly granted

judgment on the fraud claim to Dr. Cook.

4 Id. 5 18 Del. C. 6853(e). See also Roache v. Charney, 38 A.3d 281, 286 (Del. Feb. 24, 2012); Henry v. Fisher, 2010 WL 1427354, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 7, 2010).

3 8. A de novo review of this case reveals that there are no genuine issues

of material fact and Dr. Cook is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court

of Common Pleas’ decision is free from legal error. The Court of Common Pleas

did not abuse its discretion. Thus, the Court of Common Pleas properly granted

summary judgment to Dr. Cook.

NOW, THEREFORE, this 20th day of November, 2018, for the reasons

stated herein, the Court of Common Pleas’ decision granting Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Andrea L. Rocanelli ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ____

The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli