Court Opinion

ID: 9534747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:42:36.357764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:14.384391
License: Public Domain

TERRY, Associate Judge,
concurring:
In my view, this appeal is very close to frivolous. What keeps it from being totally meritless is the fact that, as Judge Schwelb notes in his opinion, Ms. Woodfolk testified under oath at her deposition that GHA refused to treat her further because she lacked insurance. GHA did not even attempt to meet this testimony with any affidavits or deposition testimony to the contrary. I agree with GHA’s argument that the statements of the physicians which Ms. Woodfolk proffered were insufficient to defeat GHA’s motion for summary judgment because those statements were not under oath. See Super.Ct.Civ.R. 56(e). Nevertheless, because Ms. Woodfolk herself stated, under oath, that she had been abandoned by GHA, summary judgment was foreclosed. Cf. Thompson v. Seton Investments, 533 A.2d 1255, 1257-1258 (D.C.1987) (reversing summary judgment for defendant, even though plaintiff submitted no affidavits in opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion, because plaintiff’s sworn, complaint stated facts sufficient to show there was a genuine issue for trial).
I therefore join in the opinion and judgment of the court.