Plaintiff Attorney Legal Information CenterBelow is a motion for summary judgment filed by a defendant nurse in a wrongful death medical malpractice case we handled in West Virginia.
Although we ultimately secured a favorable settlement for our client — the husband of a deceased physician — this particular motion stood out for its clarity, structure, and legal reasoning. We are including it here as a strong example motion for summary judgment for lawyers and litigation students seeking guidance on drafting an effective summary judgment motion.
- More motions for summary judgment
What Every Strong Motion for Summary Judgment Needs
Before diving into the sample motion below, let’s walk through the essential components of an effective motion for summary judgment. Whether you’re a practicing litigator or a law student preparing for Moot Court, these are the foundational elements that should be present in any well-crafted motion.
1. Title and Introduction
Start with a clear title and case caption. The introduction should be concise but informative—identify the moving party and briefly state the basis for the motion. While we’re not fans of unnecessary legalese, some jurisdictions may expect a more formal tone. Use your judgment, but know that clarity always trumps jargon.
2. Statement of Undisputed Facts
This is the backbone of your motion. Lay out the material facts that are not in dispute, citing to the record—depositions, affidavits, medical records, or other documentary evidence. This section should be methodical and meticulously sourced. If the facts alone entitle your client to judgment as a matter of law, you show it here.
3. Standard of Review
Briefly explain the legal standard for summary judgment. Reference the appropriate procedural rule (e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 or the state equivalent) and the leading cases in your jurisdiction. Unless a unique legal issue requires extended treatment, keep this section tight and to the point. You’re not writing a treatise—you’re arming the court with what it needs to rule in your favor.
4. Argument
Now connect the dots. Break your argument into clearly labeled sections, each addressing a separate claim or legal element. Apply the relevant law to your undisputed facts with precision. Use recent, controlling case law when possible, especially cases with comparable fact patterns where summary judgment was granted. A well-organized and logically progressive argument will do more for you than a barrage of citations.
5. Conclusion
Reiterate the relief requested and summarize—briefly—why summary judgment is warranted. Respect the court’s time: keep it focused, persuasive, and professional. Always attach a proposed order to make it as easy as possible for the judge to rule in your favor.
Frequently Asked Questions: Drafting a Motion for Summary Judgment
What is the true objective of a motion for summary judgment?
When should I begin preparing for a potential summary judgment motion?
How much should I emphasize the standard of review?
How should I organize the motion?
What is the role of the statement of undisputed facts?
How do I determine if a fact is truly “undisputed”?
Should I file a separate statement of facts or include it within the brief?
What kind of legal authority should I include in the argument section?
How important is the proposed order?
What are the biggest mistakes to avoid in a summary judgment motion?
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
of the Estate of Jane Doe,
Plaintiff,v.ABC HOSPITAL, INC.;
PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS, INC.;
SMITH UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS;
W. WILLIAMS;
BARB BLUE; and
WENDY WHITE,
Defendants.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF WENDY WILLIAMS
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 abortion. Dr. Doe was admitted to ABC Hospital on September 3, 2024, 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
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment shall be granted if the materials in the record — including pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits — demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Once this initial burden is met, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to set forth specific facts demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986).
A fact is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, and a dispute is “genuine” 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). At the summary judgment stage, the court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
The non-moving party may not rest on mere allegations or denials in its pleadings; rather, it must present specific, admissible evidence demonstrating a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Summary judgment is properly granted when the non-moving party fails to establish the existence of an element essential to its case, and on which it will bear the burden of proof at trial. 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 concerning 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 the reporting of this patient that was not her primary patient?”
Answer: “I think she accompanied her to the ICU, and I would think she had some knowledge 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 does not criticize 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. In this case, the primary nurse 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.
Proposed Order Granting Summary Judgment
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA
ROBERT A. JONES, as Administrator of the Estate of Jane Doe, Plaintiff,
vs.
ABC HOSPITAL, INC.; PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS, INC.; SMITH UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS; J. JOHNSON; E. BROWN; G. GREENE; W. WILLIAMS; BARB BLUE; and WENDY WHITE, Defendants.
CASE NUMBER: 0:00-cv-00000
Upon consideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Wendy Williams, the supporting memorandum of law, the opposition thereto, and the entire record herein, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that Defendant Wendy Williams is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- The plaintiff has failed to disclose an expert qualified in nursing who holds the opinion that Defendant Wendy Williams breached the standard of care and/or caused harm to Dr. Jane Doe.
- The testimonies of the Plaintiff’s expert witnesses, who are physicians, do not possess the qualifications or credentials necessary to testify on nursing standards of care.
- The expert testimony provided by Dr. Dan Richards, Dr. Lars Kenny Jr., Dr. Kayla Spicer, Dr. Leo Jamison, Dr. Robert Gibson, and Jen Gillian, R.N., does not establish that Wendy Williams breached the standard of care or caused harm to Dr. Jane Doe.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
- Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of presenting qualified expert testimony to establish that Wendy Williams breached the standard of care or caused harm to Dr. Jane Doe.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby ORDERED that:
- The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Wendy Williams is GRANTED.
- Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Wendy Williams and against Plaintiff.
- This case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as to Defendant Wendy Williams.
SO ORDERED this ___ day of __________, 2025.
Judge’s Name
United States District Judge
Southern District of Huntington, West Virginia
cc: All Counsel of Record