Opinion ID: 2446129
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: [¶ 2] Kevin S. Dalton died on April 3, 2004, four days after undergoing a robotically-assisted surgery to repair his mitral heart valve. On June 9, 2008, Kevin's familyMerilyn A. Dalton, his widow, individually and on behalf of both the Estate of Kevin S. Dalton and their two minor children, as well as Kevin's parents, Diane and Robert Daltoninstituted proceedings [2] in the Superior Court against Kevin's health care providers in connection with Kevin's death. [3] In the complaint, they asserted claims for negligence, wrongful death, and bystander liability against Dr. Reed Quinn, Maine Heart Surgical Associates, Maine Medical Center, Dr. Paul Sweeney, and Cardiovascular Consultants of Maine, and claims for vicarious liability against Maine Heart Surgical Associates, Maine Medical Center, and Cardiovascular Consultants of Maine. [4] [¶ 3] The trial court's initial scheduling order was entered on September 19, 2008, and it provided: No extensions of the designation deadlines will be granted except on motion demonstrating good cause and that discovery was timely and diligently conducted in good faith. In accordance with the scheduling order, the Daltons timely designated Richard Freeman, M.D., as their expert witness on December 19, 2008. [5] At the time of that designation, however, the Daltons had already been aware for more than four months that Freeman had reservations about testifying. During the next six months, the parties had multiple discovery disputes about what information Freeman should be required to provide concerning his experience and expertise in the area of robotically-assisted mitral valve surgery. Freeman formally withdrew as the Daltons' expert in early June of 2009, and, on June 10, 2009, the Daltons requested, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 6(b), [6] that the deadline to designate their expert witnesses be extended to September 30, 2009. At the July hearing on their request, the Daltons' counsel stated that he needed another couple of months to find an expert, and that even after that, he may come up dry. In August of 2009, the court, without providing a definitive ruling, stated: If any extension is ultimately granted, [the Daltons] should anticipate that it would be very unlikely that such an extension would be granted beyond September 14, 2009. [¶ 4] The Daltons were unable to secure an expert witness by September 14, 2009, and on September 15, 2009, they sought a second enlargement of time to designate an expert witness. The court denied the Daltons' request in October of 2009, finding that there was no good cause for a further extension. The court reasoned that, although the Daltons knew at least as early as April 2009 that Freeman wanted to withdraw, they then devoted considerable time and effort to an unsuccessful effort to persuade the court that the discovery sought from Dr. Freeman constituted `harassment' and did so without initially disclosing that Dr. Freeman had at various time[s] given additional reasons for his desire to withdraw. The court also stated that the Daltons had had more than 120 days after Dr. Freeman's withdrawal in which to find a new expert, and refused to allow the case to remain in a state of suspended animation while the Daltons sought extension after extension. [¶ 5] Quinn subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Daltons' claims were unsupported by expert testimony. Following a hearing, the court granted Quinn's motion for summary judgment on February 8, 2010, and this appeal followed.