Skinner v. Peninsula Healthcare Services, LLC ( 2021 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CHAROLETTE SKINNER, )
Individually and on behalf of the )
Estate of ALBERT SKINNER; )
JUDITH POWERS; and BRUCE )
SKINNER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) C.A. No.: N20C-09-178 FJJ
v. )
)
PENINSULA HEALTHCARE )
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware )
Limited Liability Company, )
Individually and d/b/a CADIA )
REHABILITATION )
RENAISSANCE; and LONG )
TERM CARE CORP., )
)
Defendants. )
Submitted: March 15, 2021
Decided: March 19, 2021
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR REARGUMENT: DENIED
Kelley M. Huff, Esquire, Shelsby & Leoni, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs
Maria R. Granaudo Gesty, Esquire, Burns White LLC, Wilmington, Delaware,
Attorneys for Defendants
Jones, J.
On March 1, 2021 this Court issued an Opinion and Order finding that
plaintiffs’ Wrongful Death Claims were not subject to binding arbitration and
denying Defendant’s Motion to Stay the instant action until the survivor claims had
been arbitrated. Defendant has moved for reargument on both decisions. For the
reasons stated below Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion for reargument permits a trial court to reconsider its findings of
fact, conclusions of law, or judgment.1 “Delaware law places a heavy burden on a
[party] seeking relief pursuant to Rule 59.2 The moving party has the burden to
demonstrate the Court must correct an error of law or prevent manifest injustice
deriving from its judgment.3 A Rule 59(e) application is not an avenue for the
moving party to raise new arguments or rehash arguments already decided by the
Court.”4 And such motion will be denied unless the Court has “overlooked a
controlling precedent or legal principles,” or “has misapprehended the law or facts
such as would affect the outcome of the decision” challenged.5 Upon a Rule 59(e)
1
See Ramon v. Ramon, 963 A.2d 128, 135 (Del. 2008) (“A motion for reargument is the proper device for
seeking reconsideration by the Trial Court of its findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment.”) (internal
citations omitted.)
2
Kostyshyn v Comm’rs of Town of Bellefonte, 2007 WL 1241875, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 27, 2007)..
3
See Hesslr, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969) (“manifest purpose of all Rule 59 motions is to afford
the Trial Court an opportunity to correct errors”).
4
Maravilla-Diego v. MBM Construction, II, LLC., 2015 WL 5055955, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2015)
(citing cases).
5
Commings v. Jimmy’s Grille, Inc. 2000 WL 1211167, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug 9, 2000).
2
reargument motion, the Court “will determine from the motion and answer whether
reargument will be granted.”6
ANALYSIS
Defendant claims that the Court’s original decision overlooks the Supreme
Court decision in Deuley, et.al. v Dyncorp In’L, Inc., et.al., *A3d 1156 (2010)7 and
Deuley requires that the wrongful death claims be arbitrated. In Deuley an
employee signed a release which provided that the acceptance of insurance benefits
was the exclusive remedy for any cause of action related to his employment
including a wrongful death claim. The Supreme Court held that the decedents
“waive their eligible survivors wrongful death claims” by signing the release. While
the Supreme Court recognized that a wrongful death claim is a separate and distinct
claim, in Delaware, the Court held that a wrongful death action is held subject to
the same infirmities as would have existed in a suit by the deceased if still alive.
According to defendant, Deuley and Drake v. St. Francis Hosp., 560 A.2d 1059(Del. 1989), dictates that this Court require the wrongful death claims to be
submitted to binding arbitration.
Deuley and Drake stand for the same legal principle- a condition precedent
to a wrongful death action is “the decedent’s ability to have maintained an action
6
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e).
7
The Court notes that this decision was decided in 2010 and not cited to the Court at any point prior to the instant
Motion for Reargument.
3
and recover damages, if death had not ensured”. In these cases, the decedents’
inability to maintain an action and recover damages means that the condition
precedent for a wrongful death claim was not met and therefore the wrongful death
claims were precluded. In the instant action the decedent has a viable claim. It is
not untimely as in Drake and it has not been waived as in Deuley. The submission
of decedent’s claim to arbitration does not destroy the viability of his claim, it
simply changes the venue. Because the decedent has the ability to maintain an
action and recover damages, the condition precedent has been met and the
independent wrongful death claims are actionable. As the wrongful death
beneficiaries have an independent cause of action, have a right to a jury trial and
have not waived that right, 8 the binding arbitration provision has no application to
them.
In the alternative Defendant again urges this Court to reconsider its decision
denying its application to stay the wrongful death claims pending resolution of the
survivor claims in arbitration. This time Defendant cites the Court to the
Pennsylvania decision in Clouser v Golden Gate National Senior Care, 2017
4546626 (U.S.D C. W. D PA., 2017). In its original decision this Court relied upon
the decision in Mendez v. Puerto Rican Intern., Co., Inc 553. F3d. 709 (3rd Cir.,
2009). The Court remains convinced that Mendez is the better approach and
8
Hylak v Manor Care Pike Creek of Wilmington, 2017 WL 3499923 (Del. Super. 2017).
4
declines Defendant’s invitation to stay these proceedings.9 Nothing in this Court’s
decision
Having found that the Defendant has not met the requirements of Rule 59(e)
Defendant’s Motion for Reargument be and hereby is DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/S/ Francis J. Jones
Francis J. Jones, Judge
cc: File&ServeXpress
9
Defendant argues that this Court’s decision could lead to the possibility of two inconsistent results: one from the
arbitration in the survivor action and one from a jury in the instant wrongful death action. Nothing in this
decision should be read by the parties to preclude them from having this Court consider the effect of any
arbitration decision on this action if the arbitration decision is concluded before trial in this matter.
5