Title: Fink v. Thompson

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

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). LaVecchia, J., writing for a unanimous Court. The issue in this appeal is whether plaintiff's case must be dismissed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26 to - 29 for failure to timely file an affidavit of merit. In August 1996, decedent, Lisa Fink, experienced headaches, fever, neck pain, unsteadiness, and weakness in her legs. She became increasingly confused. On August 29, 1996, Fink saw Dr. Sutton-Surak, who consulted with a neurologist and immediately sent Fink to Riverview Hospital. At the hospital, Fink came under the care of a neurologist, Dr. Anayiotes, who recommended an MRI. On August 30, Dr. Sutton-Surak saw Fink at the hospital and described her as in a confused state. A spinal tap was performed. Dr. Anayiotes ordered ampicillin administered. According to Sutton-Surak, Anayiotes suspected Fink might have listeria meningitis (listeria). Ampicillin is the drug of choice to treat listeria. As Fink's conditioned worsened, she was transferred to Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital (Robert Wood Johnson). Sutton-Surak contends that she spoke with Dr. Nolledo, a resident at Robert Wood Johnson, and informed him that Fink's spinal tap fluid was not clear and that the neurologist at Riverview Hospital suspected listeria and had prescribed penicillin. She recalled the resident saying he would speak with his attending physician and call her back to advise if the hospital would accept the transfer. Nolledo purportedly called back at 6:00 p.m. on August 30th and advised that his attending physician, Dr. Strobel, authorized Fink's transfer. Nolledo believes that Sutton-Surak spoke directly with Strobel, and Strobel informed Nolledo about Fink's condition but did not mention listeria. Strobel remembers speaking with a female physician, but states that he was not told of the listeria but only of the possibility of some form of meningitis. Although Strobel did not recall discussing ampicillin, he admitted it was his habit to ask about all medication a patient was taking. Fink arrived at Robert Wood Johnson about 11:00 p.m. that night. Following Fink's arrival at Robert Wood Johnson, Nolledo telephoned Strobel and presented the patient to him, including advising him of the report of the infectious disease resident, Dr. Solanki, who had examined Fink on her arrival. Strobel asked Nolledo about evidence of increased intracrannial pressure. Strobel contends that he was told Fink's optic discs were flat and her neurologic exam was not abnormal. Fink's medical records reveal an unsigned entry at 1:30 a.m. ordering ampicillin for Fink. A second unsigned entry at 1:37 a.m. cancelled the ampicillin. In Dr. Strobel's deposition, which occurred after he was dismissed from this action, he admitted that he directed Nolledo to stop the ampicillin, but to obtain first an infectious-disease consultation. He presumed that the ampicillin was stopped because the infectious disease resident agreed with that course of action. On August 31 at 9:35 a.m., the Riverview Hospital laboratory contacted Strobel and informed him that Fink's spinal fluid testing indicated listeria. Strobel promptly reordered the ampicillin, but Fink had already developed cardiac problems. Her brain stem herniated and she passed away later that day. Plaintiff obtained a pre-suit expert report that detailed the negligence of each of the doctors prior to Fink's transfer to Robert Wood Johnson, including Riverview Hospital's negligence. In respect of Robert Wood Johnson, the report referred in two respects to institutional negligence without attempting to differentiate concerning theories of negligence by unnamed residents and what they did and did not discuss with their attending physician. The attending physician was not identified by name in that paragraph, but was referred to earlier in the report as Dr. Strobel. More than 120 days later, Strobel moved to dismiss because the affidavit did not identify him. Plaintiff immediately filed a supplemental affidavit in which the expert stated that it had recently become known to him that Strobel was the attending physician at Robert Wood Johnson and therefore he could now be identified as one of the unknown physicians. Plaintiff filed a subsequent affidavit that further elaborated and explained that the medical records were unclear and the expert had been unable to allocate responsibility fully as among various named and unnamed defendants. The Law Division dismissed the complaint as to Strobel for failure to comply with the affidavit of merit statute. The Appellate Division denied review. HELD: Omitting Strobel's name from the initial affidavit must be regarded as a failure to comply strictly with the statute. However, plaintiff's actions constitute a good faith effort and substantial compliance. 1. The Affidavit of Merit statute requires the plaintiff to provide each defendant with an affidavit of an appropriate licensed person that the defendant's care, skill or knowledge fell outside acceptable practices. When the defendant has failed to provide records bearing on the preparation of the affidavit, the plaintiff may file a sworn statement in lieu of an affidavit. Failure to provide either an affidavit or sworn statement shall be deemed a failure to state a cause of action. Requiring a threshold showing of merit balances the goal of reducing frivolous lawsuits and the imperative of permitting injured plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue recovery from culpable defendants. (Pp. 10- 11). 2. Here, strict compliance with the statute was lacking. Plaintiff's August 14, 1998 affidavit of merit failed to include specific reference to Strobel, therefore the expert's sworn statement does not attest to the merit of plaintiff's suit as against that defendant. The supplemental affidavits were untimely. (Pp. 11-13). 3. The doctrine of substantial compliance requires that a defaulting party demonstrate lack of prejudice to the defending party, a series of steps taken to comply with the statute, a general compliance with the purpose of the statute, a reasonable notice of petitioner's claim, and a reasonable explanation why there was not a strict compliance with the statute. Here, Strobel was served with a complaint that alleged professional negligence by him, an affidavit of merit, and an extensive expert's report that focused on his conduct and the performance of unnamed residents by specifically referencing their professional interaction with the attending physician. The report also explained that the negligent stopping of ampicillin played a causative role in Fink's death, although Strobel's participation in that decision had not yet been disclosed by discovery. Because discovery of additional facts was necessary to clarify the roles of various Robert Wood Johnson participants, the expert's failure to assert a specific theory of liability against Strobel at that time should not preclude plaintiff's suit. Moreover, Strobel was not prejudiced by the lapse in strict compliance, and plaintiff has offered a reasonable explanation for that lapse. Finally, although Strobel was not named in the affidavit, he was prepared for suit after receiving the complaint, expert report, and affidavit. Evidence was not lost, and permitting plaintiff's case to proceed would not result in undue additional defense costs. (Pp. 14-19). The judgment of the Law Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, and ZAZZALI join in JUSTICE LaVECCHIA'S opinion. JUSTICE VERNIERO did not participate. JOHN FINK, as Administrator Ad Prosequendum and Administrator of the Estate of LISA M. FINK, decedent, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT M. THOMPSON, M.D., AUDREY SUTTON-SURAK, D.O., ROBERT LIEGNER, M.D., CHRIS ANAYIOTOS, M.D., MERIDIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, RIVERVIEW MEDICAL CENTER, RIVERVIEW EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, XYZ, INC., (fictitious corporation), MICHAEL NOLLEDO, M.D., JOHN DOE, M.D. 1-10, ROBERT ROE 1-10 and JANE ROE 1-10 (fictitious names) as agents, servants, employees, and/or holding privileges of MERIDIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, RIVERVIEW MEDICAL CENTER, RIVERVIEW EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, and ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Defendants, RICHARD STROBEL, M.D., and Defendants-Respondents. ___________________________ Argued January 29, 2001 -- Decided May 31, 2001 On appeal from the Superior Court, Law Division, Monmouth County. Michael D. Schottland argued the cause for appellant (Schottland, Manning, Rosen & Caliendo, attorneys; Vincent P. Manning, on letter brief). Matthew S. Schorr argued the cause for respondents (McDonough, Korn & Eichhorn, attorneys). William L. Gold argued the cause for amicus curiae, Association of Trial Lawyers - New Jersey (Bendit Weinstock, attorneys). The opinion of the Court was delivered by LaVECCHIA, J. This is another appeal concerning the Affidavit of Merit statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26 to -29. The issue again is whether plaintiff's case must be dismissed for failure to timely file an affidavit of merit setting forth an expert's sworn statement that there is a reasonable probability that the defendant's conduct deviated from acceptable standards of professional due care. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27. . . . . When Ms. Fink suffered a bout of ventricular tachycardia at about 5:00 a.m. on August 31, 1996, the doctors had a duty to determine why she suffered this arrhythmia. Included in the differential diagnosis was sepsis, brainstem inflammation and ischemia, and increased intracrannial pressure from hydrocephalus and edema. The failure to consult a neurologist or a neurosurgeon or to perform a CT scan immediately after reestablishing a normal cardiac rhythm constituted a breach of the standard of due care. More than 120 days later, Strobel moved to dismiss because the affidavit filed did not identify him. Plaintiff immediately filed a supplemental affidavit in March 1999 in which the expert added: In addition, it has become known to me that defendant, Richard Strobel, M.D., was the attending physician at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital and therefore can now be identified as one of the unknown physicians of Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital who deviated from accepted standards of care in his treatment of the decedent, Lisa M. Fink. Plaintiff filed a subsequent affidavit in August 1999 that elaborated on that March 1999 affidavit. The expert explained that Fink's medical records were unclear and, in the case of Robert Wood Johnson, plagued by illegibility, and therefore he had been unable to allocate responsibility fully as among the various named and unnamed defendants. The Law Division dismissed the complaint as to Strobel for failure to comply with the affidavit of merit statute, and the Appellate Division denied review. We granted leave to appeal, 165 N.J. 129 (2000). NO. A-120 JOHN FINK, as Administrator Ad Prosequendum and Administrator of the Estate of LISA M. FINK, decedent, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT M. THOMPSON, M.D., et al., Defendants. DECIDED May 31, 2000 Chief Justice Poritz