Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Medical MalpracticeColumnsLitigationLJN NewslettersMedical Malpractice Law & Strategy

Verdicts

By ljnstaff
November 02, 2017

A Good-Faith Effort Is All That's Required

In an unpublished opinion, a two-judge panel of New Jersey's Appellate Division recently reinstated a medical malpractice case that had been dismissed for want of an expert. Judges Richard Hoffman and Susan Reisner pointed to 2010's state Supreme Court ruling in Ryan v. Renny, 203 N.J. 37 (2010), which interpreted 2004's New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act (PFA) to require only that plaintiffs make a good-faith effort to find a qualified expert to back their claims; even if ultimately unsuccessful, the PFA provided a “safety valve” to those who tried to find a medical expert practicing in the same specialty as the defendant, so that their medical malpractice suits need not necessarily be dismissed.

Kim Glucker underwent a colonoscopy in 2011, performed by Dr. Robert Barbalinardo of Montclair Surgical Associates. She suffered a ruptured spleen during the procedure and had to have it removed. Glucker and her husband sued the doctor and his practice, and obtained affidavits of merit from a general surgeon and from a gastroenterologist, but one of these experts later withdrew from the case because of personal health issues, while the other was disqualified by a judge. Glucker was able to show that her attorney then contacted over 100 more medical professionals in an effort to secure a new expert opinion, but to no avail.

Quoting Ryan, the appellate judges in Glucker v. Barbalinardo determined that the plaintiff's case could go forward because “the very existence of the waiver makes it obvious to us that the Legislature did not intend a malpractice case to stand or fall solely on the presence or absence of a same-specialty expert.”

A Good-Faith Effort Is All That's Required

In an unpublished opinion, a two-judge panel of New Jersey's Appellate Division recently reinstated a medical malpractice case that had been dismissed for want of an expert. Judges Richard Hoffman and Susan Reisner pointed to 2010's state Supreme Court ruling in Ryan v. Renny , 203 N.J. 37 (2010), which interpreted 2004's New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act (PFA) to require only that plaintiffs make a good-faith effort to find a qualified expert to back their claims; even if ultimately unsuccessful, the PFA provided a “safety valve” to those who tried to find a medical expert practicing in the same specialty as the defendant, so that their medical malpractice suits need not necessarily be dismissed.

Kim Glucker underwent a colonoscopy in 2011, performed by Dr. Robert Barbalinardo of Montclair Surgical Associates. She suffered a ruptured spleen during the procedure and had to have it removed. Glucker and her husband sued the doctor and his practice, and obtained affidavits of merit from a general surgeon and from a gastroenterologist, but one of these experts later withdrew from the case because of personal health issues, while the other was disqualified by a judge. Glucker was able to show that her attorney then contacted over 100 more medical professionals in an effort to secure a new expert opinion, but to no avail.

Quoting Ryan, the appellate judges in Glucker v. Barbalinardo determined that the plaintiff's case could go forward because “the very existence of the waiver makes it obvious to us that the Legislature did not intend a malpractice case to stand or fall solely on the presence or absence of a same-specialty expert.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit Image

Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.