Title: Smith v. Correct Care Solutions LLC, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 368, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 9, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FREDERICK W. SMITH, JR.,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, 
LLC, et al.,  
 
           Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 368, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N12C-02-254 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: July 12, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 9, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 9th day of August 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Frederick W. Smith, Jr., filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s June 20, 2012 order dismissing his medical 
negligence complaint on the ground that he did not provide an affidavit of 
merit as required by Del. Code Ann. tit. 18, §6853(a) (1).  The defendants-
appellees, Correct Care Solutions, LLC, et al., have moved to affirm the 
 
2
Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
the opening brief that this appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm.   
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in February 2012, Smith, an inmate at 
the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, filed a complaint in the Superior 
Court alleging medical negligence against Correct Care, the prison health 
care provider, and several of its employees.  In lieu of an answer, Correct 
Care filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Smith failed 
to provide an affidavit of merit as required by §6853(a) (1) and, moreover, 
was not excused from compliance with that requirement because his 
complaint failed to raise a rebuttable inference of medical negligence under 
§6853(b) and (e).   
 
(3) 
Section 6853(a) (1) requires a plaintiff who files a complaint 
alleging medical negligence to provide an affidavit of merit signed by an 
expert as to each defendant named in the complaint.  The statute provides 
the following exceptions to that requirement:  a) where a foreign body was 
unintentionally left within the body of a patient following surgery; b) where 
an explosion or fire originating in a substance used in treatment occurred in 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3
the course of treatment; or c) where a surgical procedure was performed on 
the wrong patient or the wrong organ, limb or part of the patient’s body.2 
 
(4) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s June 20, 2012 order, 
Smith claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion when it dismissed 
his complaint without a trial by jury.  Smith also appears to claim that he is 
relieved of the statutory requirement for a certificate of merit because he 
signed an authorization form permitting review of his medical records with 
Correct Care.3 
 
(5) 
It is undisputed that Smith did not file an affidavit of merit for 
each defendant named in his complaint, as required by the statute.  Nor was 
Smith relieved of that requirement by providing a medical authorization 
form to Correct Care.  Nor, finally, is there any evidence in the record that 
Smith is relieved of that requirement by falling within one of the statutory 
exceptions.  Thus, we find no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the 
Superior Court in dismissing Smith’s complaint.4  
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 18, §6853(b) and (e).   
3 Smith also questions why his complaint was permitted to be filed and service permitted 
to proceed in apparent violation of the procedures outlined in §6853(a) (1).  We agree 
that those procedures do not appear to have been followed by the Prothonotary, but 
conclude that the deviation is without any legal effect in this case. 
4 See also Walls v. Cooper, et al., Del. Supr., No. 209, 1991, Horsey, J. (Nov. 8, 1991). 
 
4
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appellee’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice