Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed a summary judgment entered for Mercy Health Center in a medical negligence action involving injuries sustained during a child's birth. The court held that the plaintiffs' summary-judgment materials presented a factual dispute concerning causation and that a trial court's later Daubert ruling could not be used retroactively to support summary judgment granted before the Daubert adjudication. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals was vacated, and the matter was remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the summary-judgment materials created a genuine dispute of material fact on causation.
- Whether the district court could rely on a Daubert ruling made after granting summary judgment to support the earlier summary judgment.
- Whether plaintiffs' motion to reconsider an interlocutory partial summary adjudication was restricted by the statutory provisions governing motions for new trial or motions to vacate or modify final judgments.
- Whether the certified partial summary judgment was immediately appealable under 12 O.S. § 994.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was improper because plaintiffs' evidentiary materials presented a disputed question of fact as to whether abnormal Pitocin exposure and resulting contractions contributed to the child's brachial plexus injury.
- A trial court's pretrial ruling on a Daubert objection may not be applied retroactively as a ground to support a summary judgment granted before the trial court adjudicated the Daubert objection.
- A motion to reconsider an interlocutory partial summary adjudication made before entry of a final, appealable judgment is not automatically treated as a motion for new trial under 12 O.S. § 651 or as a motion to vacate or modify a final judgment under 12 O.S. §§ 1031 or 1031.1.
- The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the certified judgment resolving all claims against Mercy Health Center under 12 O.S. § 994.
Key quotations
“We hold that (1) a question of fact was presented by the summary judgment filings, and (2) a trial court's pretrial ruling on a Daubert objection to evidence may not be used as grounds to retroactively support a summary judgment granted prior to the trial court's Daubert adjudication.” (¶ 39)
“A party has a procedural right to have his or her admissible evidence be considered on summary judgment unless challenged by an opposing party.” (¶ 38)
Factual background
The plaintiffs alleged that medical providers negligently managed the delivery of their child, causing permanent brachial plexus injury. They presented expert materials asserting that excessive Pitocin administration by Mercy's nursing staff contributed to shoulder dystocia and that the shoulder dystocia and delivery maneuvers contributed to the child's injury. Mercy sought summary judgment and separately challenged plaintiffs' expert testimony under Daubert.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs sued several medical providers alleging negligence in prenatal care and delivery that caused their child's permanent brachial plexus injury. The district court granted Mercy Health Center's amended motion for summary judgment and later certified the order for immediate appeal under 12 O.S. § 994. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, after which the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.
Remand instructions
The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is vacated, Mercy Health Center's summary judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The Daubert causation issue was not conclusively resolved on the record and may be addressed through appropriate pretrial proceedings on remand.