State of Delaware ex rel. Jennings v. Purdue Pharma L.P. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    STATE OF DELAWARE, ex rel.
    KATHLEEN JENNINGS, Attorney
    General of the State of Delaware,
    Plaintiff,
    V.
    PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE
    PHARMA INC.; THE PURDUE
    FREDERICK COMPANY; ENDO
    HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.;
    ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.;
    MCKESSON CORPORATION;
    CARDINAL HEALTH INC.;
    AMERISOURCEBERGEN
    CORPORATION; ANDA
    PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; H.D.
    SMITH, LLC; CVS HEALTH
    CORPORATION; and WALGREENS
    BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.,
    Defendants.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    C.A. No. N18C-01-223 MMJ CCLD
    Submitted: November 7, 2019
    Decided: December 16, 2019
    Determination of Whether the Supplemental Affidavit of Merit
    Complies with 
    18 Del. C
    . §§ 6853(a)(1) and (c)
    ORDER
    Section 6853(a)(1) of title 18 of the Delaware Code provides that all
    healthcare negligence complaints must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit as
    to each defendant signed by an expert witness, accompanied by a current curriculum
    vitae of the witness, stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there
    has been healthcare medical negligence committed by each defendant.
    In this case, the Supplemental Affidavit of Merit was filed under seal, as
    required. Pursuant to 
    18 Del. C
    . § 6853(d), the Court conducted in camera review
    of the affidavit to determine compliance with sections 6853(a)(1) and (c). The Court
    also has reviewed the accompanying curriculum vitae. The Court finds:
    1. The affidavit is signed by an expert witness.
    2 The affidavit is accompanied by a current curriculum vitae.
    ay The affidavit sets forth the expert’s opinion that there are reasonable
    grounds to believe that the applicable standard of care was breached by Defendant
    Walgreens.
    4. The affidavit sets forth the expert’s opinion that there are reasonable
    grounds to believe that illustrative examples of specifically enumerated breaches by
    Walgreens proximately caused the injuries claimed in the complaint. Statutory
    constraints relating to patient privacy prevented the expert witness from linking
    patients by name to the injuries alleged.
    5. The expert witness was licensed to practice in the medical field of
    pharmacy as of the date of the affidavit.
    6. In the 3 years immediately preceding the alleged negligent act, the
    expert witness was engaged in the treatment of patients and/or in the
    teaching/academic side of medicine in the field of Pharmacy.
    7. The expert witness is board certified as a Pharmacotherapy Specialist.
    THEREFORE, under the specific and unique facts alleged in the complaint,
    and having considered an issue which appears to be of first impression, the Court
    has reviewed in camera the Supplemental Affidavit of Merit and accompanying
    curriculum vitae of plaintiff's expert witness, and the Court finds that the
    Supplemental Affidavit of Merit complies with sections 6853(a)(1) and (c) of title
    18 of the Delaware Code.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    The HgiforableMary M. Johnston
    

Document Info

Docket Number: N18C-01-223 MMJ CCLD

Judges: Johnston J.

Filed Date: 12/16/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/17/2019