Johnson v. Henning.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY LAVINIA JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. JOANNE HENNING, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. K12C-10-038 RBY ORDER In reference to Defendant’s Motions in Limine, I cannot determine from the January 13, 2014 e-mail cover whether or not “Dr. Robinson’s note” would be sufficient to carry Plaintiff’s initial burden as to the need for and causal relationship of a second knee surgery. Hence, Defendant’s Motion regarding Dr. Robinson’s opinion will await trial, unless we can determine that at the December 10, 2014 pretrial. As to the economic testimony of Dr. Tannian, as noted in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Response, the claim for future wage loss is withdrawn as a claim. Relative to the claim of $27,004.00 for future medical expenses, the amount may, indeed, be modest given anticipations. However, there is no medical support presently established to provide any basis for an economic evaluation. The economist may take numbers opined by the physician and analyze them for present value, cost projections, life expectancy and so forth. However, he cannot create the original numbers from his imagination. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to preclude the testimony of Dr. Tannian is Johnson v. Henning C.A. No. K12C-10-038 RBY December 8, 2014 GRANTED. SO ORDERED this 8th day of December, 2014. /s/ Robert B. Young J. RBY/lmc Via File & ServeXpress oc: Prothonotary cc: Counsel Opinion Distribution File
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
