IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STACIA VICK and CHADWICK §
VICK, §
§ No. 255, 2019
Plaintiffs Below, §
Appellants, § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ C.A. No. K17C-09-007
DR. NASREEN KHAN, KHAN §
OBSTETRICS AND §
GYNECOLOGY ASSOCIATES, §
P.A., BAYHEALTH INC., §
BAYHEALTH MEDICAL §
CENTER, and KENT GENERAL §
HOSPITAL, §
§
Defendants Below, §
Appellees. §
Submitted: July 9, 2019
Decided: July 17, 2019
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal and the supplemental
notice of interlocutory appeal, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The plaintiffs below-appellants, Stacia Vick and Chadwick Vick, have
petitioned this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory appeal
from a Superior Court opinion and order, dated May 17, 2019, ruling on multiple
motions in the Vicks’ medical negligence action.1 In the decision, the Superior
Court: (i) denied the Khan Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Untimely Motion
for Summary Judgment and Ten Untimely Motions in Limine; (ii) denied the
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Bayhealth’s Motion for Summary Judgment; (iii) granted
the Khan Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Informed Consent
Claims; (iv) denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; (v)
granted the Khan Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’
Medical Negligence Claims in Performance of Hysterectomy and Episiotomy; (vi)
granted the Khan Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary on Punitive Damages
Claims; and (vii) granted Defendant Bayhealth’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
(2) On June 14, 2019, the Vicks filed an untimely application for
certification of an interlocutory appeal. They asked for an extension of the deadline
because they were out of state at the time of the Superior Court’s May 17 th decision.
The defendants opposed the application. On June 28, 2019, the Superior Court
denied the application, finding that the Vicks had not shown good cause for their
untimely application and that the application did not satisfy the Rule 42 criteria for
certification.
1
Vick v. Khan, 2019 WL 2177114 (Del. Super. Ct. May 17, 2019). In February, this Court refused
the Vicks’ application for certification of an interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court order
dismissing six counts of the complaint and denying the Vicks’ motion to amend the complaint.
Vick v. Khan, 2019 WL 856599 (Del. Feb. 21, 2019).
2
(3) Having considered the Superior Court’s June 28, 2019 order, the Court
agrees with the denial of the application for certification. The application, which
was filed on June 14, 2019, was untimely because it was filed more than ten days
after the Superior Court’s May 17th decision.2 The Vicks did not establish good
cause for their untimely filing and did not satisfy the criteria for the certification of
an interlocutory appeal under Rule 42.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory
appeal is REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
2
Supr. Ct. R. 42(c)(i) (“Such application shall be served and filed within 10 days of the entry of
the order from which the appeal is sought or such longer time as the trial court, in its discretion,
may order for good cause shown.”).
3