Medical Negligence Suit - Affidavit of Merit Review

IN THE SUPERIOR COU RT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE L ATR ECE L. L EWI S, JAS O N C.) WILLIAM S, as Power of Att orney fo r) MARCIE L. WILLIAMS,)) Plain tiff s,) C.A. No.: K2 4C - 08 - 031 NEP) v.)) CHURC HM AN VIL LAGE OF) DELAWAR E, INC., d/b/a CHU RCHMAN) VILLAGE REHABIL ITATION &) NURSI NG C ENTE R, a Dela ware) corpor at ion, a nd BU ENA VIST A) HEALTHC ARE, LLC, a Dela ware) Corpor at ion,)) Defe nda nt s.) S ubmit ted: December 31, 2025 Decid ed: February 25, 202 6 ORD ER 0F 1 Upon Review of t he Affidavit s of Merit COMPLIANT 1. T his matt er inv olves a medi cal neglige nc e suit f iled by L atrece L. Lewi s and Ja son C. Willia ms (“Plaintiffs”), as att orne ys - in - fact fo r th e l ate Ma rcie L. Wil liams (“ Dec edent”), again st Ch urc hman V illa ge of De la ware, I nc. a nd Bue na Vista Healthc are, LLC (“Defen dants”). 1F 2 By mot ion, Defe ndan ts ha ve re ques ted t hat 1 Citations hereafter in the form of “(D.I. __)” refer to docket items. 2 Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 25(a), Plaintiffs ha ve indicated that Decedent died during the pendency of this lawsuit. S ee Suggestion of Death (D.I. 14) (indicating, upon information and belief, that said death occurred on March 17, 2025).

2 this C ourt re vie w the aff idav its of me rit s ubm itted with P lain tiff s ’ Am ended Compl aint to ensu re com plia nce wi th 18 De l. C. § 6853(a)(1) and (c). 2F 3 2. On Aug ust 30, 20 24, P lain tiff s f iled th eir o rigi nal Compla int, soundi ng in medi cal negl igenc e, toget her wit h two a ffid avit s of mer it pu rsua nt to 1 8 Del. C. § 6853, one a utho red b y a ph ysici an an d one auth ore d by a nur se. 3F 4 3. Upon De fen dant s’ mot ion for in camera review, the Court iss ued an Order dat ed A pril 25, 2 025, c onc ludi ng th at th e ph ysic ian’s affi davi t of m eri t satis fied the statut ory requir ements o f 18 Del. C. § 6853 and, having f ound on e compl iant a ffi davi t suff icie nt, dec lin ing to cons ider t he nurs e’ s affi davi t for the reas ons sta ted therein. 4F 5 4. Foll owing Dece den t’s de ath, Pla intif fs fi led a n Ame nde d Co mplai nt asser ting a sur viva l ac tion a nd a ddin g a wr ongf ul deat h clai m. 5F 6 Plaint iffs filed two affid avits o f merit with th e Amended Co mplaint, agai n auth ored by a physic ia n (th e “Phys icia n Affi davi t”) an d a nurse, whic h are sub stan tivel y the sam e as tho se previ ous ly rev iewe d by the cour t. F 7 On December 18, 2025, Defend ants f iled its moti on for in ca mera review of the affid avits. 7F 8 5. In Dela ware, each me dical n egl igence com plai nt mus t be ac compa nie d by an affidavit of mer it opining a s to the ne glig enc e of each def endant, s igned by an expert, and atta chi ng the expe rt’ s curre nt curr icul um vi tae. 8F 9 The expert mu st be 3 Defen dants Churchm an Vi llage of Delaw are, Inc., d/b/a Churchman Vil lage Rehab. & Nursing Ctr. an d Buena Vista H eal thcare, LLC ’s Mot. for In Camera Review of t he Aff. of Mer it Filed with the Amended Complaint (D. I. 22). 4 Compl. (D.I. 1). 5 D. I. 1 5. In its April 25, 2025 Orde r, the Court declined to consider the nurse’s affidavit because 18 Del. C. § 6853(a)(1) requires only a single affidavit of merit as to each defendant, and the physician ’s affidavit sa tisfied all s tatutory re quirements. Id. 6 Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 29–39. (D.I. 19). 7 D.I. 19. The affidavits of merit filed with the Amended Complaint were e filed on Oc tober 14, 2025, and received in paper form on December 31, 2025. D.I. 19, 26. 8 D. I. 22. 9 18 Del. C. § 6853(a)(1).

3 licen sed t o pra ctice med icine a s of the af fida vit’ s dat e. 9F 10 He or s he m ust al so ha ve been “ eng aged in the trea tme nt of patie nts and/ or in t he tea chin g/ac adem ic si de of medic ine in th e same or simi lar fi eld of m edic ine as the def end ant ” in the 3 year s imme diat ely pre ced ing th e al leged n egl igent ac t, an d must b e Boar d cert ifie d in th e same or sim ilar fiel d of me dic ine i f the d efe ndan t is B oard c ertif ied. 10F 11 6. The af fidavit must indicate that re aso nab le gro unds e xist t o belie ve t hat the ap plic able stan dar d of ca re wa s bre ache d by e ach defenda nt a nd tha t the brea ch was a p roxi ma te caus e of the injur ies all eged in the compl aint. 11F 12 Additi onally, the affi davi t must b e filed un der s eal; u pon re ques t, it ma y be rev iewe d in cam era to ensure com plia nce wit h stat utor y req uire ments. 12F 13 The r equ irem ent s for affidavits are “p urp osefu lly m inima l” in tha t the Gen eral As semb ly “ di d not in ten d a m initria l at this st age of t he litiga tion. ” 13F 14 A n a ffidavit need n ot re pea t verb atim the statuto ry lang uage; r athe r, it s state ment s nee d only r epre sent t he f unct iona l equiva le nt of the statu tory langu age to be judi cial ly acce ptab le. 14F 15 As the filing o f an affid avit of merit is a duty in derog ation of the comm on law, the Court m ust nar rowl y con stru e the requir eme nts f or suc h a n aff idavit. 15F 16 10 Id. § 6853(c). 11 Id. The requirements regarding Board certificati on apply only if the defendant is a physici an. Zappaterrini v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2009 WL 1101618, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 22, 2009) (“[B]ecause the defendant is not a physician, the statutory requirement of similar Board certif ication is not applic able.”); McNulty v. Correct Care Sols., LLC, 2017 WL 1323711, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 7, 2017) (noting that “same or similar” Board certification does not apply where defendant is not a physician). 12 18 Del. C. § 6853(c). 13 Id. § 6853 (a)(1), (d). 14 Dishmon v. Fucci, 32 A.3d 338, 342–43 (Del. 2011). 15 Id.; see also id. at 344 (“M edical experts need not cou ch th eir opin ions i n leg al terms, st ate th e facts that underly [sic] their determina tion, or to [si c] arti culate t he stand ard of care with a high degree of legal precision or ‘magic words.’” (citation omitted)). 16 Hodge v. Bayhealth M ed. Ctr., Inc., 2025 WL 1068228, at *3 (Del. S uper. Apr. 9, 2025) (citations o mitted); accord Gibson v. Keith, 492 A.2d 241, 247 (Del. 1985) (“[S]trict, rather than liberal, construction of legislation in derogation of the common law is the rule.” (citing Carp er v. Bd. of Ed uc., 432 A.2d 1202 (Del. 1981); State v. Brown, 195 A.2d 379 (Del. 1963))).

4 7. As the Cou rt pre vio usly he ld in its A pril 2 5, 20 25 Order, 18 Del. C. § 6853(a)(1) req uire s only a sing le com pl ia nt a ffida vit of m eri t as t o eac h defe nda nt. 16F 17 Provi ded t hat t he Ph ysic ian Affi dav it addre sse s the al lege d negli genc e of Defe ndan ts and s atisf ies the s tat utor y req uire ment s, t he C ourt need not cons ider t he nur se’s affi davi t of me rit f or the r eas ons e xpla ine d in the Co urt’s prior Or der. 17F 18 8. The Cour t has perf orme d an in came ra re view of the Physi cian Affida vit fi led wit h the Amende d Compl ain t. As to the affid avit in qu esti on, the Court finds a s follows: a. The af fida vit is sig ned b y its a uthor. b. The current c urri culum vita e is no t attac he d. c. In the affi davi t, t he aff iant c onc lude s that there are rea sonable grou nds to be liev e that Def en dant s violate d the ap plica ble sta nd ard of car e and that thi s brea ch wa s a pr oxima te cause of the inj uries to Dece den t alle ged i n the C ompla int. d. While the affi davi t does no t ident ify th e specif ic date of the allege dly negl igen t act or omi ssion g ivi ng rise to th is suit, the Court has pre vio usl y deter mine d tha t this i s not a r equ irem ent f or a compl iant a ffi davi t of meri t. 18F 19 e. As of the date he sign ed it, t he auth or of t he Phys icia n Affi dav it was licen sed t o prac tice m edic ine in t wo st ates. He wa s al so boa rd cert ified in In terna l Med icine. Since 1995, he has b een invo lved in the “te achi ng/a cade mic si de of me dici ne in the same or simi lar fi eld of me dici ne as t he . . . defe ndan ts,” a s requ ire d by the sta tute. 1 F 20 17 Lewis v. Churchman Village of Delaware, 2025 WL 1203101, at *3 (Del. Super. Apr. 25, 2025) (D.I. 15). 18 Id. 19 Id. 20 See 18 Del. C. § 6853(c).

5 9. Altho ugh t he curre nt cur ric ulu m vit ae is not a ttac hed to th e Phys icia n Affida vit, the C ourt does no t fin d tha t this omis sion re nders the affi davi t defec tive. This C our t has discr etio n in c hoosi ng an appr opr iate sa nct ion for no ncom plia nce with S ecti on 6 853 a nd mu st bal ance d ismis sal w ith the Co urt’ s str ong p olic y favor ing de cidi ng ca ses on t heir m erit s. The De lawar e Supr em e Cour t in Dishmon, supra, hel d tha t “a fa ilur e to e ncl ose the curri culum vit ae does not, by itself, justi fy dism issa l.” 20F 21 More over, as in Dishmon, there ar e no facts he re to sug gest tha t Plain tiff s were per so nall y respo nsible for the ir attor ney’ s fail ure to inc lude the curr icul um v itae with the P hys ician Affi davi t or that P la intif fs’ a ttor ney a cte d in bad faith. 2 F 22 This Cour t pr evi ously rece ive d th e ph ysicia n’s cu rric ulum v itae in conne ctio n wit h the ori gina l Comp lain t in late 2024, 22F 23 and nothi ng in the presen t recor d sugg ests tha t the expe rt’ s quali fica tion s have mate ria lly cha nged si nce th at time. Unde r the se c ircums tanc es, t he a bsen ce of t he c urric ulum v itae f rom t he Amen ded C ompl ain t does not un derm ine th e suf fici ency of the aff idav it. Never the less, to e nsu re the r eco rd r ema ins ac cura te and c omp lete, the Cour t wi ll requir e Pla int iff’ s coun sel ei ther t o file an u pdate d cur ricu lum vit ae or to fil e a writ ten re prese ntat io n affi rmin g that no subs tant ial c han ges occu rre d in th e physic ia n’s curricul um vita e betwee n the fi ling of the orig inal a ffida vit a nd t he filing of the sec ond aff idav it. WHEREFORE, in conside rat ion of t he fore goi ng, th e Cour t f inds t hat the Phys ician Af fida vit s ubmi tted b y Pla intif fs sa tisf ies th e stat utor y requ irem ents of 18 Del. C. § 6853(a) and (c). The C ourt the r efore f ind s that af fi davi t of mer it, a nd by extensi on Plainti ffs’ Amen ded Com plai nt, to be COM PLIA NT, su bjec t to th e follo wing c ondition: P laintiff s’ cou nsel s hall, with in twen ty (20) day s of the dat e 21 32 A.3d at 345. 22 See i d. 23 See D.I. 1.

6 of this Order, either fil e an up date d cu rricu lum vit ae or file a wri tt en repre sent ation on t he re cord affi rmin g th at no su bst ant ial ch ange s ha ve occurred in the physician - exp ert’ s curricu lum vit ae between the filing of the origi nal aff idavit o f merit an d the filing of the second affid avit. IT IS SO ORDE RE D. NEP:t ls Via Fil e & Serv eXpress oc: Protho notary cc: Coun sel of R ecor d