IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARIE DISTEFANO, a Delaware 

resident,

Plaintiff,

v.

PIKE CREEK HEALTHCARE 

SERVICES, LLC doing business as 

CADIA REHABILITATION PIKE 

CREEK, CADIA HEALTHCARE, 

LLC, ENCOMPASS HEALTH 

CORPORATION, doing business as, 

ENCOMPASS HEALTH 

REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF 

MIDDLETOWN, LLC, formerly 

known as, HEALTHSOUTH 

REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF 

MIDDLETOWN, WOUND HEALING 

SOLUTIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA 

AND DELAWARE LLC, TEAM 

HEALTH, INC., TEAM HEALTH 

HOLDINGS, INC., IPC 

HEALTHCARE, INC., IPC THE 

HOSPITALIST MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY, LLC, and ASHISH 

KHANDELWAL, M.D.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C.A. No.: N20C-03-246 KMM

ORDER

Date Submitted: April 24, 2024

Date Decided: May 6, 2024

Upon Wound Healing Solutions of Pennsylvania and Delaware, LLC’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment GRANTED.
1

Introduction

1. Plaintiff filed this medical negligence action on March 25, 2020,

against multiple defendants, asserting that while she was treated at the various 

facilities, the defendants failed to properly monitor and treat a post-surgery 

infection.1

2. Defendant Pike Creek Healthcare Services, LLC (“Pike Creek”) filed 

an answer and a cross-claim against all defendants on June 24, 2020. In its crossclaim, Pike Creek sought apportionment of liability to permit it to seek contribution 

from its co-defendants.2

3. A trial scheduling order was entered on March 17, 2021, which was 

amended multiple times.3

4. Plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed certain defendants, including 

Wound Healing Solutions of Pennsylvania and Delaware LLC (“Wound Healing”),

on July 19, 2023.4

5. On April 11, 2024, Wound Healing filed a Motion for Summary 

Judgment (the “Motion”).

5

 No party filed an opposition to the Motion; however, 

Pike Creek filed a response6requesting certain relief if the Motion is granted.

1 D.I. 1, 4.

2 D.I. 26.

3

See D.I. 49, 51, 67, 105, 109, 116, 123. 

4 D.I. 122.

5 D.I. 158.

6 D.I. 161.
2

6. For the reasons discussed below, Wound Healing’s Motion is 

GRANTED. Pike Creek’s requested relief is DENIED.

Factual Background

7. Plaintiff had spinal surgery at Christiana Hospital and was a patient at 

the hospital from July 26, through July 30, 2018.7 Plaintiff was discharged to 

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Middletown (“HealthSouth Rehabilitation”), 

where she was a patient until August 18, 2018.8 She then became a patient at Pike 

Creek until August 24, 2018.9 While at Pike Creek, plaintiff was examined and 

treated by Wound Healing.10

8. While at HealthSouth Rehabilitation, plaintiff’s incision is alleged to 

have become infected, which was left untreated.11 Plaintiff’s condition further 

deteriorated while at Pike Creek.12 Plaintiff was transferred to Christiana Care on 

August 24, 2018, where she was treated for severe sepsis and infection in the surgical 

area.13 It is further alleged that as a result of the negligence of the defendants, 

plaintiff was required to undergo another surgery to address the infection and to 

remove the surgical hardware inserted in the July 2018 surgery.14 Plaintiff then 

7 D.I. 4, ¶ 29.

8

Id., ¶ 34.

9

Id., ¶ 46.

10 Id., ¶ 48.

11 Id., ¶¶ 35-36.¶

12 Id., ¶¶ 47, 53.

13 Id., ¶ 57.

14 Id., ¶¶ 58, 61, 64.
3

received post-surgical treatment at another facility and later required another 

hospitalization.15 As a result of the various providers’ medical negligence, plaintiff 

alleges she sustained permanent injuries and suffered damages.

The Motion

9. In April 2023, plaintiff served her expert disclosures and accompanying 

reports.16 In September 2023, plaintiff served her rebuttal expert disclosures and 

accompanying reports.17 Of the experts identified by plaintiff, only Kathleen HillO’Neill, DNP, RN, CNRP, NHA and Richard Berg, M.D. may be qualified to offer 

a standard of care opinion in relation to the care and treatment provided by Wound 

Healing.18 As of the time the Motion was filed, all plaintiff’s experts were deposed 

except Ms. Hill-O’Neill.19 According to Wound Healing, none of plaintiff’s experts 

offered opinions against Wound Healing.20

10. On July 26, 2023, two defendants served their expert disclosures and 

reports.21 On July 27, 2023, Pike Creek filed its expert disclosures and reports.22 

15 Id., ¶¶ 66-67, 73.

16 D.I. 158, ¶ 2.

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id., ¶¶ 6, 12.

20 Id.

21 Id., ¶ 4.

22 Id.
4

None of these experts offered an opinion with respect to the care and treatment 

provided by Wound Healing.23

11. Wound Healing asserts that because medical expert testimony is 

required to prove medical negligence as to the standard of care and causation and 

none has been provided against it, it is entitled to summary judgment.

12. On April 18, 2024, plaintiff filed a letter advising the Court that she 

does not oppose the Motion.24 On April 29, 2024, defendants Khandelwal and 

Inpatient Consultants of Delaware, Inc. filed a letter advising the Court that they take 

no position on the Motion.25

13. On April 24, 2024, Pike Creek filed a Response to the Motion.26 Pike 

Creek advised that it takes no position on the Motion. However, if the Motion is 

granted, Pike Creek requests “that parties be precluded from offering any testimony 

(including lay or expert), argument or evidence critical of the care provided by” 

Wound Healing.27

Summary Judgment Standard

14. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of 

material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.28 The 

23 Id., ¶ 5.

24 D.I. 160.

25 D.I. 162.

26 D.I. 161.

27 Id., ¶ 7.

28 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c); Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979).
5

moving party bears the initial burden of showing that no material issue of fact 

remains.

29

 On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the record in a 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party.30 

15. After adequate time for discovery, if the party bearing the burden of 

proof at trial fails to “make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an 

element essential to that party’s case,” summary judgment is appropriate because the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.31

Analysis

16. In a medical negligence action, Delaware law requires that expert 

medical testimony be presented as to the alleged deviation from the applicable 

standard of care and to causation of the alleged injuries.32 Thus, these are essential 

elements of a claim of medical negligence. 

17. Plaintiff obviously has not provided any medical expert testimony on 

the standard of care or causation against Wound Healing, as she dismissed her claim 

against Wound Healing. 

18. No defendant has asserted that their expert has offered an opinion on 

the standard of care or causation against Wound Healing, including Pike Creek. 

29 Moore, 405 A.2d at 680.

30 Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 59 (Del. 1991).

31 Id. (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)).

32 18 Del. C. § 6853(e).
6

19. It appears that the remaining claim against Wound Healing is the crossclaim filed by Pike Creek. Pike Creek would bear the burden of proof at trial on this 

claim. Without expert medical testimony against Wound Healing, Pike Creek has 

failed to establish the existence of an element essential to its claim against Wound 

Healing. Accordingly, Wound Healing is entitled to summary judgment.

20. It is unclear from Pike Creek’s Response what testimony or evidence it 

seeks to exclude. The Response does not provide any factual background for its 

requested relief. Because the Court cannot discern what testimony or evidence may 

be offered, there is no basis to grant the requested relief. If Pike Creek can identify 

specific evidence or testimony it desires to exclude, it may do so through an 

appropriate motion. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED.

/s/Kathleen M. Miller

Judge Kathleen M. Miller