Motion for Summary Judgment Example

The Defendant, Wendy Williams, R.N., by counsel, Sam Samuels, and the law firm of Samuels & Assoc., PLLC, submits this memorandum of law in support of her Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motion should be granted as the Plaintiff has failed to disclose an expert qualified in nursing who holds the opinion that Defendant Williams breached the standard of care and/or caused harm to Jane Doe.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case involves the death of Dr. Jane Doe, a 37-year-old physician who experienced a second-trimester septic, missed abortion. Dr. Doe was admitted to ABC Hospital on September 3, 2023, presenting with vomiting, headache, and fever. She was 17 weeks pregnant, and the fetus was non-viable upon admission. Despite medical interventions, her condition never stabilized, and she passed away on October 2, 2023.

Dr. Doe had a complicated medical history, including previous ectopic pregnancies, loss of an ovary, and in vitro fertilization. Upon admission, she was diagnosed with sepsis from chorioamnionitis due to intrauterine fetal death. Broad-spectrum antibiotics were ordered, and she underwent various medical procedures, but her condition deteriorated, leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), renal failure, and metabolic acidosis. She eventually succumbed to these complications.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. If this burden is met, the non-moving party must then set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

A genuine issue of material fact exists if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The court must view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

The non-moving party cannot rest on mere allegations or denials but must present concrete evidence supporting its claims. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Summary judgment is appropriate when the non-moving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case for which it bears the burden of proof. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23.

ARGUMENT

The Expert Physicians Testifying on Behalf of the Plaintiff Do Not Qualify as Nurses

The Court has previously indicated that only a nurse’s testimony can reliably establish the standard of care applicable to nurses. The Plaintiff’s experts, who are physicians, do not possess the qualifications or credentials necessary to testify on nursing standards of care. During depositions, it became clear that none of the physicians had nursing education, training, or credentials.

Dr. Dan Richards

Dr. Richards’ testimony against Wendy White was not provided voluntarily but was elicited through leading questions from Plaintiff’s counsel. He lacks the qualifications to testify against a nurse, and his opinions are not credible.

Question: “Is there anything else you plan on commenting about that we haven’t asked you?”

Answer: “I think we have covered most of what’s in my report. I think that covers it.”

Later, Plaintiff’s counsel led Dr. Richards into vague references about Nurse White’s conduct:

Question: “Do you have some additional opinions with respect to the breaches, and although not specifically referred to in your deposition here today, that there was a nurse by the name of Williams who administered the clindamycin to Dr. Doe around 11:30 p.m.?”

Answer: “OK.”

Question: “And she did not administer the gentamicin at that time, and I think it’s your opinion that the nurse should have checked at that point to see whether gentamicin was and why it wasn’t on the chart.”

Mr. Samuels: “Objection. You are stating an opinion that he hasn’t given.”

Plaintiff’s Counsel: “I’m asking if it’s true.”

Question: “Doctor, is that an opinion that you intend to give if there was a breach by Nurse White that at the time she gave the clindamycin at 11:30, she should have also checked to find out where the gentamicin was because both of those medications had been ordered at the same time by Dr. Greene?”

Answer: “I think that would have been the appropriate action to take, yes.”

Question: “And you also believe that there was a breach in the standard of care by the nurses when they transferred Dr. Doe from OB Labor and Delivery into the intensive care unit by not at least notifying the pharmacy of the transfer and finding out and letting them know where to send the gentamicin because Dr. Doe had been transferred from one unit to another?”

Mr. Samuels: “Same objection to leading your witness.”

Answer: “I think there should have been more vigilance to make sure this patient got the drugs that were ordered, which in her case would have been life-saving.”

This testimony was weak and not part of Dr. Richards’ original opinions. Furthermore, Dr. Richards is not qualified to testify as a nurse.

Dr. Lars Kenny Jr.

Dr. Kenny initially criticized the nurses involved but admitted that he would withdraw his criticism if Nurse White was merely assisting with the patient transfer. Nurse White testified that her role was limited to assisting with the transfer and hanging a bag of clindamycin, which should nullify Dr. Kenny’s criticism.

Question: “Do you have any criticisms of W. White?”

Answer: “Only in the issue about the disappearance of gentamicin.”

Question: “Is there anything that you’ve read that tells you Wendy White had anything to do with reporting of this patient that was not her primary patient?”

Answer: “I think she accompanied her to the ICU, and I would think had some knowledge of the fact that gentamicin was ordered and gentamicin wasn’t given. If she can say, ‘I never knew that,’ I would obviously withdraw that criticism.”

Dr. Kenny stated he would withdraw his criticism if Nurse White testified she was just helping push the patient down the hall and had no idea what medications were ordered. Nurse White testified that her role was limited to assisting with the transfer and hanging a bag of clindamycin.

Dr. Kayla Spicer

Dr. Spicer’s criticisms were based on assumptions about Nurse White’s responsibilities. Upon re-examination, she conceded that the primary nurse, not Nurse White, bore the responsibility for medication administration.

Question: “Are you still critical of the OB nurses for not giving the gentamicin before the patient was transported out to the ICU?”

Answer: “If it’s not written ‘stat,’ it usually goes to the next given time. It’s every 8-hour medication that’s – if they don’t write it ‘now,’ usually it goes to the next, the next time that would be on schedule.”

Dr. Spicer had no specific criticisms of Nurse White beyond not giving the gentamicin and admitted that if the gentamicin was not ordered “stat,” it would have been given at the next scheduled dose.

Dr. Leo Jamison

Dr. Jamison clearly stated that he has no criticisms of Wendy White and does not consider himself a nursing expert.

Question: “Do you have any criticism of Wendy White?”

Answer: “No.”

Dr. Jamison acknowledged that although he has testified about nursing issues related to critically ill patients, he is not a nurse.

Dr. Robert Gibson

Dr. Gibson provided vague criticisms but did not specifically single out Nurse White. His testimony indicated that the primary responsibility for medication administration lay with the primary nurse, Amanda Eyre.

Question: “Was it Ms. White’s obligation when she gave the clindamycin to note that gentamicin was also ordered and then communicate to the ICU nurse that gentamicin had not been given?”

Answer: “Yes.”

Question: “Did Ms. Eyre, the nurse assigned to the patient, have the obligation to check to see where the gentamicin was and what happened to it?”

Answer: “Yes.”

Dr. Gibson believed that the failure to administer the gentamicin, along with the failure of the physicians to order appropriate fluid boluses, was the reason the patient did not survive. He did not single out Nurse White as the primary person obligated to ensure the medication was administered.

Plaintiff’s Nursing Expert, Jen Gillian, R.N.

Jen Gillian, R.N., initially criticized Nurse White but later conceded that the primary nurse was responsible for ensuring the administration of medications. Ms. Gillian admitted that if Nurse White was not the primary nurse, her criticisms would not apply.

Question: “Do you have criticisms of Nurse White?”

Answer: “She had an obligation to find out where gentamicin was at the time clindamycin was administered to Dr. Doe.”

Question: “Are you critical of Nurse White for coming to help hang the bag of fluid for someone?”

Answer: “No.”

Question: “Are you holding her to the standard of care she would be held to if she was the primary nurse in this case?”

Answer: “No.”

Ms. Gillian does not have substantial criticism of Nurse White if she was not the primary nurse. The primary nurse in this case was Amanda Eyre.

CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff has failed to present qualified expert testimony establishing that Wendy White breached the standard of care or caused harm to Dr. Jane Doe. The testimonies of the Plaintiff’s experts do not meet the requisite standards for admissible evidence regarding nursing care. Accordingly, Wendy Williams is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Respectfully submitted,