Martin, et al. v. Doctors for Emergency Services, P.A., et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY KAY A. MARTIN, and CHARLES A. MARTIN IV, PlaintiffS, v. DOCTORS FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES, P.A., and CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. N12C-06-187 Submitted: September 10, 2012 Decided: September 21, 2012 UPON PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR REARGUMENT DENIED On this 21st day of September, 2012, it appears to the Court that: 1. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reargument from a decision of this Court that required Plaintiffs to provide a supplemental affidavit of merit reflecting a qualified expert s opinion that Defendant Doctors for Emergency Services, P.A. committed negligence and that such negligence caused Plaintiff Kay Martin s injury. The Motion for Reargument was not timely filed and is therefore DENIED. 2. The Court received Defendants Motion to Determine if the Affidavit of Merit Complies with 18 Del. C. ยง 6853 on August 20, 2012. The Court reviewed the affidavit of merit and issued its decision, by letter dated August 27, 2012, which indicated that the affidavit of merit concerning Defendant Christiana Care Health Services complied with the statutory requirements. The Court additionally ordered Plaintiffs to submit a supplemental affidavit of merit reflecting a qualified expert s opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Defendant Doctors for Emergency Services, P.A. committed negligence and that such negligence caused Plaintiff Kay Martin s injury. Instead of filing the affidavit of merit by September 11, 2012, as required by this Court s prior ruling, Plaintiffs submitted a letter to the Court on September 5, 2012. The Court contacted Plaintiffs counsel and advised him the letter would not be considered and that a Motion for Reargument should have been filed instead. Then, on September 11, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reargument of the Court s August 27, 2012 decision. Defendants did not respond. 3. Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) requires a Motion for Reargument to be served and filed within 5 days after the filing of the Court s opinion or decision. The computation of time for a motion for reargument does not include Saturdays, Sundays, or other legal holidays. 1 The time limitation on a motion for reargument is jurisdictional and, if not 1 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 6(a). 2 timely filed, the Court may not consider the merits of the motion. 2 4. Even if this Court considers the date Plaintiffs filed the letter requesting reargument, the Motion was not timely filed. Plaintiffs letter was filed on the sixth day after this Court s decision, excluding the date the decision was entered, weekends, and holidays. This Court is not permitted to consider the merits of Plaintiffs Motion because it was not filed timely. Plaintiffs Motion for Reargument is therefore DENIED. 5. Plaintiffs were required to submit a supplemental affidavit, satisfying the minimal statutory requirements, as to Defendant Doctors for Emergency Services, by September 11, 2012. That date has now passed as Plaintiffs chose instead to file their Motion for Reargument. The Court will allow Plaintiffs additional time to file the required supplemental affidavit. It shall be filed on or before October 12, 2012. IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________________ PEGGY L. ABLEMAN, JUDGE Original to Prothonotary cc: Counsel via File & Serve 2 See State v. Brokenbrough, 2008 WL 1891705 (Del. Super. Apr. 30, 2008). 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.
