Bilton, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JAN R. JURDEN JUDGE John A. Elzufon, Esq. Colleen Shields, Esq. Elzufon Auston Reardon Tarlov & Mondell, P.A. 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1700 P.O. Box 1630 Wilmington, DE 19899-1630 Paul A. Bradley, Esq. McCarter & English, LLP 919 Market Street, Suite 1800 P.O. Box 111 Wilmington, DE 19899 Richard Galperin, Esq. Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams 222 Delaware Avenue Wilmington, DE 19899-2306 Mason E. Turner, Jr., Esq. Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A. 1310 King Street P.O. Box 1328 Wilmington, DE 19899-1328 NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 10400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3733 TELEPHONE (302) 255-0665 May 3, 2005 Donald E. Reid, Esq. Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 Gilbert F. Shelby, Jr., Esq. Morgan Shelsby & Leoni 131 Continental Drive, Suite 206 Newark, DE 19713-4320 James F. Bailey, Jr., Esq. Bailey & Associates, P.A. Three Mill Road, Suite 306A Wilmington, DE 19806 Norbert Bergholtz, Esq. Michael T. Manuel, Esq. echert LLP 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793 Kara S. Hager, Esq. Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C. 1300 N. Market Street, Suite 212 Wilmington, DE 19801 RE: Civil Action No. 02C-11-153-JRJ Jerry A. Bilton, et al vs. Bayer Corporation, et al C.A. No. 02C-11-153-JRJ Bilton vs. Bayer Dear Counsel: This is the opinion and order on defendant Bayhealth Medical Center=s (hereinafter the ADefendant@) motion for summary judgment. On December 7, 2004, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and on February 22, 2005, Jerry A. Bilton et al., (hereinafter the APlaintiff@) filed their response. On March 11, 2005, the Court held oral argument. For the following reasons, Defendant=s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Superior Court Rule 56(c) provides that judgment Ashall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.@1 The burden is on the moving party to show, with reasonable certainty, that no genuine issue of material fact exists and judgment as a matter of law is permitted.2 When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court must consider the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.3 Further, if the record indicates that a material fact is disputed, or if further inquiry into the facts is necessary, summary judgment is not appropriate.4 Based on my review of the papers and arguments of counsel, I conclude that a more thorough inquiry into the facts surrounding the decedent=s understanding and beliefs with regard to the relationship between the Defendant and the treating physicians is necessary in this case. Consequently, and because Delaware law is clear that the determination of the existence of an agency relationship is an issue of fact, the Defendant=s motion for summary judgement is at this point, denied, without prejudice.5 1 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56. See Celotex Corp. v. Cattret, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Martin v. Nealis Motors, Inc., 247 A.2d 831 (Del. 1968). 2 3 See McCall v. Villa Pizza Inc., 636 A.2d 912 (del. 1994). See Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 470 (Del. 1962) (holding that it is improper to grant summary judgment when Aupon examination of all the facts, it seems desirable to inquire thoroughly into them in order to clarify application of the law to the circumstances.@). 4 5 See Fisher v. Townsends, Inc., 695 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1997). 2 Very truly yours, JRJ/awg Jan R. Jurden Judge Original to Prothonotary 3

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.