Supreme Court of Delaware
Timeka Green, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. Alfred A.i. Dupont Institute of the Nemours Foundation and Freeman…
August 9, 20002000 Del. LEXIS 327
Summary
The Supreme Court of Delaware held that the Superior Court abused its discretion by excluding portions of a defense-retained expert's videotaped deposition from the plaintiff's medical-malpractice trial. The deposition had been taken for anticipated trial use, and the parties' pretrial stipulations recognized that either side could use it; excluding the testimony materially prejudiced the plaintiff because it contained evidence relevant to the standard of care and was unavailable through another expert at that stage. The court reversed the denial of a new trial and remanded for a new trial.
Holding
- Admissibility and exclusion of the defense expert's videotaped deposition. The Superior Court abused its discretion by excluding Green's use of portions of Dr. Sponseller's videotaped deposition. The deposition was taken with the understanding that it would be presented to the jury, the pretrial stipulations recognized its availability for use by either party, and the exclusion materially prejudiced Green's ability to present her medical-malpractice claim.
Docket 366, 1999
Cited authorities
- Rule 16(e)
- Rule 16(e)
- Rule 16(e)
- R. 35(b)
- Rule 32(a)(3)
Cited by
- Borlawsky v. Town of Windham
- Heather E. Turner, Below v. Delaware Surgical Group, P.a., Eric D. Kalish, M.d. and Michael K. Conway, M.d., Below
- Pierce v. Elizabeth Murphey School
- Scott v. Amisial
- Brown v. Stellini
- Kathleen Marie Barrow
- Debra Wright, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. Michael Moore, and Simco Sales Service of Pennsylvania, Inc., A…
- Angelo Cuonzo, Esq.