Meekins v. Barnes2/10/2000
As amended March 2, 2000.
MARY MEEKINS AND WILLIAM A. MEEKINS, HER HUSBAND, PLAINTIFFS BELOW, APPELLANTS,
v.
SUSAN BARNES, M.D., WOMEN'S IMAGING CENTER OF DELAWARE, INC. AND EDELL RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A., DEFENDANTS BELOW, APPELLEES.
Court Below-- Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 97C-04-167
Robert Burton Coonin, Esquire, of Berkowitz, Schagrin, Coonin & Cooper, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, for appellants. Mason E. Turner, Jr., Esquire, of Prickett, Jones, Elliott, Kristol & Schnee, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellees. F. Alton Tybout, Esquire, of Tybout, Redfearn & Pell, Wilmington, Delaware, for Women's Imaging Center of Delaware, Inc.
Before Veasey, Chief Justice, Walsh, Holland, Hartnett and Berger, Justices (constituting the Court en Banc).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Holland, Justice
Submitted: September 14, 1999
Upon appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED.
The plaintiffs-appellants, Mary Meekins ("Meekins") and her husband, filed a medical malpractice action in the Superior Court. The defendants named in the amended complaint are Meekins' gynecologist, Dr. Albert Dworkin, M.D.; a radiologist, Dr. Susan Barnes, M.D.; Women's Imaging Center of Delaware ("WIC"), and Edell Radiology Associates ("Edell"). For the purposes of this appeal, WIC and Edell are considered to be Dr. Barnes' employers. These three defendants will be referred to in this opinion collectively as the "radiologists."
This is an appeal by Meekins from the Superior Court's final judgment in favor of the radiologists. All of the defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The Superior Court granted the radiologists' motions for summary judgment on the basis that Meekins' complaint was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. It deferred a decision on Dr. Dworkin's motion. On the motion of the radiologists, the Superior Court certified its orders in favor of the radiologists as a final judgment that is appealable to this Court pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b).
In this appeal, we have examined Meekins' amended complaint from two separate perspectives. First, we have assumed it alleges a cause of action for a single act of medical negligence by the radiologists. Second, we have assumed that Meekins' complaint states with particularity a claim alleging a continuous course of negligent medical treatment against the radiologists. We have concluded that the Superior Court properly determined Meekins' complaint against the radiologists is time-barred under either theory. Accordingly, the judgments of the Superior Court are affirmed.
Facts
Between 1990 and December 22, 1994, Meekins had several mammograms performed at WIC. After each mammogram, Dr. Barnes interpreted the films and discussed her interpretation with Meekins. Each year, Dr. Barnes informed Meekins to return one year later. Shortly after each annual mammogram, Dr. Barnes sent a report of her interpretation to Dr. Dworkin.
The events that are the subject of this litigation relate to Meekins' mammogram on December 21, 1994. Following the mammography on that date, Dr. Barnes interpreted the film, discussed that interpretation with Meekins, and advised Meekins to come back for another mammogram in one year. Dr. Barnes also prepared a report dated December 22, 1994, recommending "continued annual examination" and sent it to Dr. Dworkin. None of the radiology defendants had any contac
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|