Lafnear v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LINDA LAFNEAR, as Administrator, :
of the Estate of PATRICIA BOONE, :
and Linda Lafnear Individually and :
KENNETH COLE Individually, : C.A. No.: K25C-03-045 JJC
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
v. :
:
BAYHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER, :
INC., a Delaware Corporation, :
:
Defendant. :

Submitted: May 29, 2025
Decided: June 2, 2025

ORDER

This matter involves a medical negligence suit, proceeding under a theory of
respondeat superior, filed by Plaintiffs Linda Lafnear, acting individually and as the
administrator of the Estate of Patricia Boone (hereinafter, “Decedent”), and Kenneth
Cole against Defendant Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. (hereinafter, “Bayhealth”).
Plaintiffs allege Decedent received negligent medical attention and supervision
while hospitalized at Bayhealth’s Kent General Hospital facility for angiodysplasia
of the colon, anemia, blood positive stool, and low potassium. More specifically,
Plaintiffs allege that as Decedent awaited discharge on December 18, 2023, she
drank a quantity of chlorhexidine gluconate 4% soap solution that was left
unattended at her bedside by employees of Bayhealth. Thereafter, Decedent became
hypotensive and tachypneic, which required her to be intubated. She then developed
hypovolemic shock, renal failure, and gastrointestinal bleed, which ultimately
resulted in her death. Plaintiffs further contend that due to Bayhealth’s alleged
negligence, Decedent’s Estate incurred medical bills and funeral expenses in excess
of $10,000, and that they have experienced, and will continue to experience, severe
mental anguish, suffering, and grief resulting from the loss of their mother.
Bayhealth has now submitted a motion requesting that the Court perform an
in camera review of the affidavit of merit filed in this case to determine whether it
complies with 18 Del. C. §§ 6853(a)(1) and (c). In Delaware, a plaintiff initiating
a medical negligence action must file with the complaint an affidavit of merit as to
each defendant.1 This requirement “operates as a prophylactic measure” to prevent
frivolous and meritless medical negligence claims.2 As such, an affidavit of merit
must be signed by an expert witness and accompanied by the expert’s current
curriculum vitae.3 Even though the plaintiff must file the affidavit under seal, a
defendant may request the Court to review it in camera to ensure it complies with
the statutory requirements.4 Generally, an affidavit that tracks the statutory language
will be found compliant.5
As for the qualifications of the expert signing the affidavit, the expert must be
licensed to practice medicine as of the date of the affidavit.6 They must also have
been engaged in the treatment of patients or in the academic side of medicine in the
same or similar field of medicine as the defendant for the three years preceding the
alleged negligence.7 Furthermore, the affidavit must set forth the expert’s opinion
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant breached the

1
18 Del. C. § 6853(a)(1).
2
Dishmon v. Fucci, 32 A.2d 338, 342 (Del. 2011).
3
18 Del. C. § 6853(a)(1).
4
Flamer v. Nanticoke Memorial Hospital, 2020 WL 113911, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 9, 2020)
(citing 18 Del. C. § 6853(d)).
5
Dishmon, 32 A.2d at 342–43.
6
18 Del. C. § 6853(c).
7
Id.
2
applicable standard of care, and that the defendant’s breach was a proximate cause
of the injuries specified in the complaint.8
As requested, after an in camera review of the affidavit of merit and the expert
witness’s curriculum vitae, the Court finds:
(1) The expert signed the affidavit;
(2) The expert attached a curriculum vitae;

(3) The expert is currently licensed to practice medicine;

(4) The expert is Board certified in family medicine and osteopathic
manipulative medicine;
(5) The expert has been engaged in the treatment of patients in the same or
similar field of medicine as Bayhealth for the three years preceding the
alleged negligent conduct. Namely, the affidavit and accompanying
curriculum vitae specify that the expert practices as an inpatient
hospitalist; and
(6) The expert recites that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
Bayhealth, by and through its employees, breached the applicable standard
of care as it related to Decedent’s medical care at Kent General Hospital
in manners that directly and proximately caused her injuries and ultimate
death.
Accordingly, the affidavit of merit complies with the statutory requirements set forth
in 18 Del. C. §§ 6853(a)(1) and (c) regarding the allegations in the complaint.
Therefore, the Court finds that the affidavit of merit is COMPLIANT as to
Bayhealth.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Jeffrey J Clark
Resident Judge

Via File & ServeXpress

8
Id.
3