GUINN v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, 791 A.2d 750 (Del. 2002)

KENNETH GUINN, Plaintiff Below-Appellant, v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant Below-Appellee.

No. 517, 2001Supreme Court of Delaware.
Decided: February 22, 2002

Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 00C-02-246.

Affirmed.

Unpublished opinion is below.

KENNETH GUINN, Plaintiff Below-Appellant, v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant Below-Appellee. No. 517, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: January 4, 2002 Decided: February 22, 2002

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices

ORDER
This 22nd day of February 2002, 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, Kenneth Guinn, filed an appeal from the October 11, 2001 order of the Superior Court granting the motion of defendant-appellee, Prison Health Services (“PHS”), for summary judgment. PHS has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Guinn’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.[1]

We agree and AFFIRM.

(3) In February 2000, Guinn filed an action for medical negligence against PHS claiming that the nurses and doctors employed by PHS were negligent in failing to properly diagnose his injuries and in failing to prescribe the proper medication. On October 11, 2001, the Superior Court granted PHS’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Guinn had failed to present any expert medical testimony to support his claim of medical negligence.[2] Guinn claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion in granting PHS’s motion for summary judgment.

(4) There is no basis for Guinn’s claim of an abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court. The Superior Court was compelled under the applicable statute to grant PHS’s motion for summary judgment in the absence of any expert testimony supporting Guinn’s claim.[3] To the extent Guinn claims that he should have had additional time to procure an expert opinion or that the Superior Court should have advised him how to proceed, he has provided no evidence to support any such claim.

(5) It is manifest on the face of Guinn’s opening brief that this appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are 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, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), PHS’s motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: