Title: Buchanan v. Gay, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID J. BUCHANAN, and in the ' 
interest of HEIDI N. BUCHANAN, 
' 
No. 562, 2006 
' 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
' 
Appellant,  
 
 
' 
Court BelowBSuperior Court of  
'   
the State of Delaware, in and 
' 
for Sussex County 
v. 
 
 
 
 
' 
' 
THOMAS E. GAY, ESQUIRE;  
' 
THALIA JOAN GAY; and the firm  ' 
of STUMPF, VICKERS & SANDY, ' 
 
P.A.,  
 
 
 
 
' 
' 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
' 
C.A. No. 06C-01-002 
Appellees.  
 
 
' 
 
Submitted: March 8, 2007 
Decided: 
May 17, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 17th  day of May 2007, upon consideration of the opening brief filed 
by the pro se appellant, David J. Buchanan (ABuchanan@), a motion to affirm 
filed by appellees-Thomas E. Gay, Esq. and the law firm of Stumpf Vickers & 
Sandy, P.A. (collectively AAttorney/Law Firm Defendants@), and a motion to 
affirm filed by appellee-Thalia Joan Gay (ANurse Defendant@), it appears to the 
Court that: 
 
 
2 
(1) 
Buchanan filed a complaint seeking damages in the amount of $37 
million dollars for ABreach of Fiduciary Duty, Medical Malpractice, 
Defamation of Character, Derivative Tort, Infliction of Severe Emotional 
Distress and Harm, Litigation Conducted in Malum in Se, Failure  to Observe 
Federal Bankruptcy Laws, Violation of Civil Rights, Disadvantaging an 
Opposing Party by Misleading a Presiding Judge, Abuse of Process, Errors and 
Omissions.@1  Nurse Defendant denied the medical malpractice allegations and 
sought to dismiss the complaint for Buchanan=s failure to file an affidavit of 
merit.2  Attorney/Law Firm Defendants sought to dismiss the complaint for 
Buchanan=s failure to state a cognizable claim, his failure to join a necessary 
                                                 
1Buchanan filed the complaint on his behalf and in the interest of his daughter, Heidi 
N. Buchanan (ADaughter@).  To the extent Buchanan sought relief on behalf of Daughter, the 
Superior Court dismissed the complaint for (I) Buchanan=s  failure to follow the procedure 
for  appointment as Daughter=s legal representative, (ii) Daughter=s age of majority at the 
time of the proceedings, and (iii) Daughter=s affidavit requesting that she be dismissed as a 
party. 
2See Del. Code Ann. tit. 18, ' 6853(a)(1) (Supp. 2006) (providing that a healthcare 
negligence complaint must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit signed by an expert 
witness stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that healthcare medical 
negligence has been committed). 
 
 
3 
party, and on the bases of collateral estoppel, judicial estoppel, absolute 
privilege, and lack of standing.3 
(2) 
On June 26, 2006, the Superior Court conducted a hearing on  the 
motions to dismiss filed by Attorney/Law Firm Defendants and Nurse 
Defendant (collectively ADefendants@) and several motions filed by Buchanan.4 
 By memorandum opinion dated September 21, 2006, the Superior Court 
granted Defendants= motions to dismiss and denied, deemed moot, or denied as 
stricken, Buchanan=s motions.5  Buchanan then filed a timely motion for 
reargument, which the Superior Court denied by order dated October 13, 2006. 
(3) 
Buchanan filed this appeal from the Superior Court=s September 
21, 2006 and October 13, 2006 decisions.  The Court has carefully considered 
                                                 
3Attorney/Law Firm Defendants represented Buchanan=s former wife in matters 
before the Family Court, the Federal Bankruptcy Court, and this Court.  Nurse Defendant is  
a licensed nurse employed by Beebe Hospital where Buchanan was a patient and is the 
spouse of Attorney Defendant. 
4Buchanan filed motions for default judgment, to strike and for protective order. 
5Buchanan v. Gay, 2006 WL 2709401 (Del. Super. Ct.). 
 
 
4 
the parties= positions on appeal and the Superior Court record, including the 
transcript of the June 26, 2006 hearing.6 
                                                 
6A copy of the hearing transcript was provided to Buchanan at State expense. 
(4) 
We find it manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal 
is without merit.  The Court cannot discern an error of law or abuse of 
discretion on the part of the Superior Court when dismissing the complaint and 
otherwise denying relief.  The Court concludes that the Superior Court=s 
judgment should be affirmed on the basis of, and for the reasons set forth in, the 
well-reasoned decisions of September 21, 2006 and October 13, 2006. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), that the motions to affirm are GRANTED.  The judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Carolyn Berger  
 
Justice