finding a motion for summary judgment was properly before the Trial Court when the plaintiff had failed to identify an expert witness in 17 months since filing a malpractice suit, despite conceding that an expert would be necessary to prove his claim
How later courts described this case
- finding a motion for summary judgment was properly before the Trial Court when the plaintiff had failed to identify an expert witness in 17 months since filing a malpractice suit, despite conceding that an expert would be necessary to prove his claim
- affirming the grant of summary judgment when the plaintiff “never suggested to the trial court that he could prove medical negligence without expert witnesses until he responded to the defendant’s motions for summary judgment”
- noting that summary judgment is proper “only after the opposing party has been given ample opportunity to complete discovery.”
- “A jury trial without the requisite proof is a futile exercise, wasteful of judicial time, jurors’ time and the litigants’ time and resources.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Caniff v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2014 Ky. LEXIS 332 (2014)
The Blankenship case is readily distinguishable from the case at bar.
The opinion
MINTON, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I believe the majority’s approach to this recurring issue in medical malpractice cases is sound. However, under the specific facts of this case, I agree with Justice Venters that the trial court (and, by extension, this Court) impermissibly shifted the burden on summary judgment from the movants, Caritas and Blankenship, to the respondent, Collier. Had the movants presented an adequately particularized and supported motion for summary judgment, I would join the majority opinion. Because they did not do so, however, I respectfully dissent.