Case Title: Mills v. Sanchez

Citation: 

Docket Number: 387, 2021

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-02-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES D. MILLS, M.D., 
NASROLLAH FATEHI, M.D., 
MEGHAN B. SCHEPENS, NP-C, 
and KERRY GREGORY, PA-C, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
HARRY SANCHEZ, individually 
and on behalf of the ESTATE OF 
LEIDA SANCHEZ, MELANIE 
SANCHEZ, and ANJEANETTE 
SANCHEZ, 
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellees. 
 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 387, 2021 
§ 
§   
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  
§ 
§  C.A. No. N18C-11-265 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 1, 2022 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: February 17, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After careful consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the 
supplemental notice of appeal, and their exhibits, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
Harry Sanchez, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Leida 
Sanchez, Melanie Sanchez, and Anjeanette Sanchez (together, “Plaintiffs”) filed a 
medical malpractice complaint against a series of medical providers alleging 
negligent treatment of Leida Sanchez (“Sanchez”).  Relevant to this appeal, 
2 
 
Plaintiffs allege that Sanchez suffered a spinal cord injury that was proximately 
caused by the failure of James Mills, M.D., Nasrollah Fatehi, M.D., Meghan B. 
Schepens, NP-C, and Kerry Gregory, PA-C (“PA Gregory”) (together, 
“Neurosurgical Defendants”) to diagnose her spinal cord compromise and offer 
surgery during two separate admissions to Kent General Hospital in December 2016 
and January 2017.  
(2) 
On April 5, 2021, Neurosurgical Defendants filed a motion for partial 
summary judgment as to the claims against PA Gregory.  In support of their motion, 
Neurosurgical Defendants argued that Plaintiffs had failed to produce any expert 
testimony to support a finding that PA Gregory had breached the standard of care 
she owed to Sanchez or that any such breach caused any harm to Sanchez.  Plaintiffs 
opposed the motion, arguing that material facts remained in dispute, including 
whether PA Gregory was acting independently and without the requisite supervision 
described in her collaboration agreement with her supervising physician.1  On 
November 3, 2021, the Superior Court denied the motion (the “Order”). 
 
(3) 
On November 15, 2021, Neurosurgical Defendants asked the Superior 
Court to certify an interlocutory appeal from the Order under Supreme Court Rule 
 
1 See 24 Del. C. § 1771 (providing that a physician-physician assistant team must create a written 
collaborative agreement identifying the physician assistant’s scope of practice, defining the 
collaborating physician’s relationship with the physician’s assistant, and establishing a process for 
evaluating the physician assistant’s performance). 
3 
 
42.  Neurosurgical Defendants maintained that because reversal of the Order would 
lead to PA Gregory’s dismissal from the action, the Order had decided a substantial 
issue of material importance.  And Neurosurgical Defendants argued that the 
following Rule 42(b)(iii) factors warranted interlocutory review: (i) the Order relates 
to the construction or application of a statute, which has not been, but should be, 
settled by the Court in advance of an appeal from a final order (factor C); (ii) review 
of the interlocutory order would terminate the litigation as to PA Gregory (factor G); 
and (iii) interlocutory review would serve the considerations of justice (factor H).  
Plaintiffs opposed the application. 
 
(4) 
On January 31, 2022, the Superior Court denied the application.  
Finding that the Order merely permitted the parties to further develop the factual 
record, the Superior Court disagreed with Neurosurgical Defendants that the Order 
had decided a substantial issue or a legal right.  Nevertheless, the Superior Court 
considered the Rule 42(b)(iii) factors that Neurosurgical Defendants argued 
supported interlocutory review.  With regard to factor C—the constitutionality, 
construction, or application of a statute that should be settled by the Court in advance 
of an appeal from a final order—the court found that the relevant question was 
whether PA Gregory had complied with the relevant medical malpractice statutes 
and did not concern the construction or application of the statutes.  Accordingly, the 
Superior Court concluded that factor C did not weigh in favor of certification. 
4 
 
 
(5) 
The Superior Court also found that factor G—interlocutory review 
would terminate the litigation—did not weigh in favor of certification.  The Superior 
Court noted that interlocutory review would only be dispositive as to PA Gregory 
and that numerous other defendants remained.  Moreover, the court observed that if 
interlocutory review of the Order was successful, it would have a negligible impact 
on the trial because it would not reduce the number of witnesses or the amount or 
type of evidence that would be presented.  Finally, the Superior Court rejected 
Neurosurgical Defendants’ claim that factor H—interlocutory review would serve 
the considerations of justice—weighed in favor of certification, given the marginal 
effect that reversal of the Order would have on the underlying proceedings. 
 
(6) 
  We agree with the Superior Court that interlocutory review is not 
warranted in this case.  Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of the Court.2  In the exercise of its discretion and giving due weight 
to the Superior Court’s analysis, this Court has concluded that the application for 
interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for certification under Rule 
42(b).  Exceptional circumstances that would merit interlocutory review of the 
Superior Court’s decision do not exist in this case,3 and the potential benefits of 
 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 
5 
 
interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs 
caused by an interlocutory appeal.4 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is 
REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii).