Opinion
No. 372, 1999.
Submitted: November 12, 1999.
Decided: January 18, 2000.
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County, C.A. No. 97C-08-001.
AFFIRMED.
Before HOLLAND, HARTNETT and BERGER, Justices
ORDER
This 18th day of January 2000, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the appellee's motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1) The plaintiff-appellant, Gabriel G. Atamian ("Atamian"), filed this appeal from an August 13, 1999 order of the Superior Court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Robert A. Gorkin ("Gorkin"). Atamian asserts the following grounds for the appeal: 1) the selection process for the Malpractice Review Panel (the "Panel") that decided his case was improper; 2) the Superior Court erred in refusing to disturb a number of erroneous findings of the Panel; 3) the Superior Court erred in denying his motion for an in camera review of certain medical records and his motion to amend his complaint to reflect the information contained therein; 4) the Superior Court erred in granting Gorkin's motion for summary judgment; and 5) the Superior Court erred in denying his motion for sanctions against Gorkin.
Effective July 7, 1998, the name was changed to "Medical Negligence Review Panel."
Atamian appealed from the Superior Court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Gorkin. His first, second, third and fifth claims are reviewable by this Court on appeal as interlocutory orders of the Superior Court. Robinson v. Meding, Del. Supr., 163 A.2d 273, 275 (1960).
(2) Gorkin has filed a motion to affirm on the grounds that the decisions of the Superior Court were supported by the evidence, followed settled Delaware law and were within the discretion of the Superior Court. We find it manifest on the face of Atamian's opening brief that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
(3) This case arises out of Atamian's October 1995 hospitalization at Kent General Hospital, where he was admitted for ulcer-related complaints. During his stay, Atamian's admitting physician, Dr. Indira, asked Gorkin, a psychiatrist, to conduct a psychiatric consult on Atamian regarding his history of phobias. Atamian was initially cooperative with Gorkin and told him he had been under psychiatric care for a number of years and had been diagnosed with "phobia without panic attack." However, Atamian became defensive and hostile when Gorkin inquired about his symptoms and told Gorkin to call his doctor with any questions. Atamian also told Gorkin that he wanted him to leave. Gorkin then asked if Atamian felt his symptoms were under control. Atamian said "yes" and threatened to file a lawsuit if Gorkin prescribed medication. Gorkin then left the room. Gorkin's consult note stated that Atamian's diagnosis was unclear, that he considered "antisocial character disorder" to be a possible diagnosis and that additional history and observation would be helpful to clarify the situation.
(4) In August 1997 Atamian filed a lawsuit against Gorkin claiming assault and battery, invasion of privacy, misrepresentation and involuntary commitment in connection with the psychiatric consult. In February 1998 he requested the convening of a Panel to hear his case. In August 1998 he requested that the Department of Insurance provide him with information on the religious backgrounds of the Panel members, which was denied. The Panel heard the case in December 1998. At the close of Atamian's evidence, counsel for Gorkin moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that there was no evidence showing Gorkin had failed to meet the applicable standard of care. The Panel granted the motion. Atamian then filed a motion in the Superior Court to review the decision of the Panel. The Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Panel. Atamian also filed a motion for an in camera review of his psychotherapy records and hospital records relating to his mother's death and a motion to amend his complaint to add another claim on the basis of the information contained therein, which the Superior Court denied. Finally, Atamian filed a motion for sanctions, claiming deliberate and wanton delay on the part of Gorkin and impropriety on the part of the Prothonotary. The Superior Court denied that motion as well.
(5) Atamian's first two claims involve alleged error on the part of the Panel. These claims were considered by the Superior Court in its May 14, 1999 decision on Atamian's Motion to Review Opinion of Medical Malpractice Review Panel. The Superior Court concluded there was substantial evidence supporting the Panel's determination that Atamian had failed to present any evidence that Gorkin had breached the applicable standard of care in any respect. The Superior Court further found no error in the Panel's determination that Gorkin had conducted a psychiatric consultation rather than a psychiatric examination and concluded that the procedures used for the selection of the Panel members were proper. We have reviewed carefully the May 14, 1999 decision of the Superior Court upholding the procedures and findings of the Panel and have concluded that it is supported by the evidence, is free of legal error and, to the extent discretion was exercised, was within the Superior Court's discretion.
(6) Atamian's third claim is that the Superior Court erroneously denied his motion to conduct an in camera review of his psychotherapy records and hospital records concerning his mother's death and erroneously denied his motion to add another count to his complaint on the basis of information contained therein. This claim was considered by the Superior Court in its June 9, 1999 decision on Atamian's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint by Adding a Fifth Count. The Superior Court concluded that the proposed amendment would not constitute a cognizable claim for relief and, therefore, would not add to the legal grounds upon which Gorkin could be held liable. We have reviewed carefully the Superior Court's June 9, 1999 decision denying Atamian's motion to amend and have concluded that it is supported by the evidence, is free of legal error and, to the extent discretion was exercised, was within the Superior Court's discretion.
(7) Atamian's fourth claim is that the Superior Court erred in granting Gorkin's motion for summary judgment. Atamian contends that in granting the motion for summary judgment the Superior Court incorrectly treated his claims of assault and battery, invasion of privacy and misrepresentation as medical malpractice or medical negligence claims rather than intentional tort claims. Atamian also contends that the Superior Court committed legal error in not accepting "observational hospitalization" as a form of involuntary commitment.
(8) Our standard of review in an appeal from a grant of summary judgment is de novo. Thus, we apply the usual standards for the granting of summary judgment: (1) the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating both the absence of a material issue of fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and (2) any doubt concerning the existence of a factual dispute must be resolved in favor of the non-movant. We have reviewed the record carefully and agree with the Superior Court that Gorkin is entitled to the entry of summary judgment in his favor. There is simply no basis in the record for Atamian's claims of assault and battery, invasion of privacy, misrepresentation and involuntary commitment. Viewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to Atamian, there is no dispute as to any material fact and Gorkin is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Superior Court's August 13, 1999 decision granting summary judgment in favor of Gorkin is supported by the evidence, is free of legal error and, to the extent discretion was exercised, was within the Superior Court's discretion.
Merrill v. Crothall-American, Inc., Del. Supr., 606 A.2d 96, 99 (1992).
Mason v. United Services Automobile Assoc., Del. Supr., 697 A.2d 388, 392 (1997).
Merrill v. Crothall-American, Inc., 606 A.2d at 99.
(9) Atamian's contention that the Superior Court erred in converting his claims for intentional torts into medical malpractice, or medical negligence, claims is without merit. It was Atamian himself who requested the convening of a Panel to decide his case. By statute, the Panel only possesses the authority to decide matters involving alleged medical negligence and is limited to determining whether the defendant physician conformed to the applicable standard of care. However, in its decision granting summary judgment to Gorkin the Superior Court did not frame the issues exclusively as medical negligence issues. The Superior Court determined, and properly so, that there is no basis in law or fact for any of Atamian's claims, regardless of whether they are deemed to be medical negligence claims or intentional tort claims outside the context of medical negligence.
(10) Atamian's fifth, and final, claim is that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion for sanctions against Gorkin. This issue was considered by the Superior Court in its August 26, 1999 decision on Plaintiff's and Defendant's Motions for Sanctions. The Superior Court concluded that, in the absence of any evidence showing that Gorkin deliberately and wantonly caused delay or that there was any impropriety on the part of the Prothonotary, there was no basis for the application of sanctions. We have reviewed carefully the Superior Court's August 26, 1999 decision denying Atamian's motion for sanctions and have concluded that it is supported by the evidence, is free of legal error and, to the extent discretion was exercised, was within the Superior Court's discretion.
(11) It is manifest on the face of Atamian's opening brief that this appeal is without merit. The issues on appeal are clearly controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
MAURICE A. HARTNETT, III Justice