Case Title: Anna Gallagher and Thomas Gallagher v. Burdette-Tomlin Memorial Hospital

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-94-98

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2000-02-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). O'HERN, J., writing for a unanimous Court. This case, like Mancuso v. Neckles, _____ N.J. _____ (2000), also decided this date, involves the application of the discovery rule to a claim of medical malpractice that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. In May 1994, Anna Gallagher underwent surgery to alleviate an incontinence problem. The treatment ultimately resulted in a debilitating condition of health and she has been rendered totally incontinent. Within days of being discharged after her surgery, Gallagher visited the emergency room with bleeding, fever, chills, and an elevated blood count. Thereafter, in early August 1994, because she was experiencing continued pain, Gallagher consulted with the surgical team, which diagnosed her with acute low back syndrome and suggested that she consult an orthopedist. Instead, Gallagher consulted her family physicians later that month, who admitted her to the hospital. The family physicians then consulted with Drs. Phillips and Goldstein, Gallagher's after-care urologists, who ordered a CT-scan. The CT-scan was read by Dr. Steeb, who reported the presence of osteomyelitis, an inflammation of the bone in the surgical area. This infection allegedly was left untreated by Gallagher's after-care physicians. In September 1994, because Gallagher continued to experience pain and difficulty walking, Drs. Phillips and Goldstein again admitted her to the hospital. They ordered another CT-scan and explored the surgical area, draining a large, infected abscess. Cultures of the drainage uncovered the presence of three types of bacterial infection. Drs. Phillips and Goldstein treated the infection with a six-week course of antibiotics. In May 1995, Gallagher filed suit against the surgical team, the hospital, and various John Doe defendants. She amended her complaint in September 1995, after receiving a report from her expert indicating that Dr. Steeb failed to detect the abscess in the August 1994 CT-scan. In October, 1997, Dr. Steeb's defense expert (Dr. Jacobs) was deposed, during which testimony he asserted that the August 1994 CT-scan revealed osteomyelitis, which required treatment by Gallagher's after-care urologists, Drs. Phillips and Goldstein. In December 1997, over three years after the August 1994 CT-scan that revealed the presence of the osteomyelitis, Gallagher sought and was granted leave to amend her complaint to include her after-care urologists, Dr. Phillips and Goldstein, as defendants. Thereafter, they moved to dismiss the complaint as not timely filed. The trial court denied their motion and allowed Gallagher to invoke the discovery rule based on the delayed opinion of Dr. Jacobs. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Gallagher had no reason to question Drs. Phillips and Goldstein until Dr. Jacobs testified in October 1997. Because she acted promptly thereafter, the Appellate Division concluded, the belated opinion of Dr. Jacobs warranted Gallagher's invocation of the discovery rule. The matter is before the Supreme Court as of right based on the dissent in the Appellate Division. HELD:Because Gallagher exercised reasonable diligence and intelligence in asserting her claim against her after care urologists once she became aware that her injury may have been caused by their malpractice, she may properly invoke the discovery rule to begin an action against those physicians beyond two years after their alleged malpractice. 2. Statutes of limitations may run at different times for different defendants. (p. 8) 3. Before the deposition of testimony of Dr. Jacobs, Gallagher remained reasonably unaware that her injury was due to the fault or neglect of Dr. Phillips and Goldstein, and she exercised reasonable diligence and intelligence in asserting her claim against them thereafter. (p. 8) 4. Because of the discovery posture taken by the initial defendants in this case, it would be especially unfair to deny Gallagher the benefit of the discovery rule. (pp. 9-10) Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES GARIBALDI, STEIN, COLEMAN, and VERNIERO join in JUSTICE O'HERN's opinion. JUSTICE LONG did not participate. ANNA GALLAGHER and THOMAS GALLAGHER, h/w, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. BURDETTE-TOMLIN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; ALEXANDER M. PAGNANI, M.D.; GENE J. BRAGA, M.D.; PAGNANI-BRAGA UROLOGIC ASSOCIATES, P.A.; ROBERT STEEB, M.D.; WEST JERSEY HOSPITAL SYSTEMS, - VOORHEES DIVISION; SOUTH JERSEY RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES; W. WEISBERG, M.D.; CAPE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS; MARK J. TODT, M.D.; ROBERT J. MARO, M.D.; JOHN DOES 1 TO 3; and JOHN DOES ASSOCIATES (business entities) 1,2,3 and 6, Defendants, and HOWARD R. GOLDSTEIN, M.D.; NEIL PHILLIPS, M.D.; and UROLOGICAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants-Appellants. Argued November 8, 1999-- Decided February 16, 2000 On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 318 N.J. Super. 485 (1999). Gregory P. Saputelli argued the cause for respondents (Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, attorneys; Mr. Saputelli and Kimberly D. Sutton, on the brief). William L. Gold argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Trial Attorneys-New Jersey (Brown & Gold, attorneys; Mr. Gold and Abbott S. Brown, on the brief). Herbert J. Stern submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae The Medical Society New Jersey (Stern & Greenberg, attorneys). The opinion of the Court was delivered by O'HERN, J. This case, like Mancuso v. Neckles, __ N.J. __(2000), also decided today, involves the application of the discovery rule to a claim of medical malpractice that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. The principles that we apply are set forth in that opinion. Briefly stated, this case involves surgery that was undertaken to alleviate a woman's incontinence problem. The treatment resulted in a debilitating condition of health. Anna Gallagher has been made totally incontinent. At the time of these proceedings, she was under constant care to alleviate her condition. August 24, 1994 Dr. Steeb reports the presence of osteomyelitis, an inflammation of the bone in the surgical area. This was the infection that was allegedly left untreated by the patient's after-care physicians. None as to the after-care urologists. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES GARIBALDI, STEIN, COLEMAN, and VERNIERO join in JUSTICE O'HERN's opinion. JUSTICE LONG did not participate. NO. A-94 ANNA GALLAGHER and THOMAS GALLAGHER, h/w, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. BURDETTE-TOMLIN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; ALEXANDER M. PAGNANI, M.D.; GENE J. BRAGA, M.D.; PAGNANI-BRAGA UROLOGIC ASSOCIATES, P.A.; ROBERT STEEB, M.D.; WEST JERSEY HOSPITAL SYSTEMS, - VOORHEES DIVISION; SOUTH JERSEY RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES; W. WEISBERG, M.D.; CAPE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS; MARK J. TODT, M.D.; ROBERT J. MARO, M.D.; JOHN DOES 1 TO 3; and JOHN DOES ASSOCIATES (business entities) 1,2,3 and 6, Defendants, and HOWARD R. GOLDSTEIN, M.D.; NEIL PHILLIPS, M.D.; and UROLOGICAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants-Appellants. DECIDED February 16, 2000 Chief Justice Poritz