Supreme Court of Delaware

In a medical-malpractice case, denials of plaintiff's motion for a new trial and for reargument of the exclusion of medical expert testimony are affirmed where: 1) defendant made a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law after plaintiff's expert failed on direct examination to establish the relevant standard of care; and 2) the trial judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by declining to allow additional voir dire of plaintiff's expert via telephone.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/13/2008
• Published 11/13/2008

Judges

Court

• Supreme Court of Delaware

Counsel