Title: Vick v. Khan, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 255, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 17, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STACIA VICK and CHADWICK 
VICK,  
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
DR. NASREEN KHAN, KHAN 
OBSTETRICS AND 
GYNECOLOGY ASSOCIATES, 
P.A., BAYHEALTH INC., 
BAYHEALTH MEDICAL 
CENTER, and KENT GENERAL 
HOSPITAL, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 255, 2019 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. K17C-09-007 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  July 9, 2019 
 
 
 
 
      Decided:     July 17, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal and the supplemental 
notice of interlocutory appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiffs below-appellants, Stacia Vick and Chadwick Vick, have 
petitioned this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory appeal 
from a Superior Court opinion and order, dated May 17, 2019, ruling on multiple 
2 
 
motions in the Vicks’ medical negligence action.1  In the decision, the Superior 
Court: (i) denied the Khan Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Untimely Motion 
for Summary Judgment and Ten Untimely Motions in Limine; (ii) denied the 
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Bayhealth’s Motion for Summary Judgment; (iii) granted 
the Khan Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Informed Consent 
Claims; (iv) denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; (v) 
granted the Khan Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ 
Medical Negligence Claims in Performance of Hysterectomy and Episiotomy; (vi) 
granted the Khan Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary on Punitive Damages 
Claims; and (vii) granted Defendant Bayhealth’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 
(2) 
On June 14, 2019, the Vicks filed an untimely application for 
certification of an interlocutory appeal.  They asked for an extension of the deadline 
because they were out of state at the time of the Superior Court’s May 17th decision.  
The defendants opposed the application.  On June 28, 2019, the Superior Court 
denied the application, finding that the Vicks had not shown good cause for their 
untimely application and that the application did not satisfy the Rule 42 criteria for 
certification.   
                                                 
1 Vick v. Khan, 2019 WL 2177114 (Del. Super. Ct. May 17, 2019).  In February, this Court refused 
the Vicks’ application for certification of an interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court order 
dismissing six counts of the complaint and denying the Vicks’ motion to amend the complaint.  
Vick v. Khan, 2019 WL 856599 (Del. Feb. 21, 2019). 
3 
 
(3) 
Having considered the Superior Court’s June 28, 2019 order, the Court 
agrees with the denial of the application for certification.  The application, which 
was filed on June 14, 2019, was untimely because it was filed more than ten days 
after the Superior Court’s May 17th decision.2  The Vicks did not establish good 
cause for their untimely filing and did not satisfy the criteria for the certification of 
an interlocutory appeal under Rule 42. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 42(c)(i) (“Such application shall be served and filed within 10 days of the entry of 
the order from which the appeal is sought or such longer time as the trial court, in its discretion, 
may order for good cause shown.”).