SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3045-16T4

MICHAEL SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HUNG Q. NGUYEN, M.D. and

ADVANCED SURGICAL

CONSULTANTS,

Defendants-Respondents.

_____________________________

Argued December 17, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Messano, Gooden Brown and Rose.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-1129-13.

Michael B. Zerres argued the cause for appellant 

(Blume, Forte, Fried, Zerres & Molinari, PC, attorneys; 

Michael B. Zerres, of counsel; Robert C. Sanfilippo, on 

the briefs).

James H. Moody argued the cause for respondents 

(Orlovsky, Moody, Schaaff, Conlon & Gabrysiak,

LLC, attorneys; James H. Moody and Anthony W. 

Liberatore, on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

February 14, 2019
2

A-3045-16T4

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Michael Smith went to the hospital emergency room after 

experiencing abdominal pain for several days. Diagnostic tests did not establish 

whether plaintiff was suffering from appendicitis. The emergency room doctor 

called in defendant, Dr. Hung Q. Nguyen, a surgeon, for consultation and further 

evaluation. Defendant performed a laparoscopic diagnostic procedure in 

anticipation of removing plaintiff's appendix. However, during the procedure, 

defendant observed an abnormal lesion on plaintiff's colon near the appendix. 

Although he could not determine from observation whether the lesion was 

malignant or benign, defendant suspected it was the cause of plaintiff's pain. 

While plaintiff was under general anesthesia, defendant made a larger incision 

that permitted him to feel the lesion and examine it further. Defendant 

performed an appendectomy, removing plaintiff's appendix, and a 

hemicolectomy, removing that portion of plaintiff's colon where the lesion was 

located and other surrounding tissue. Laboratory tests revealed the lesion was 

not malignant; plaintiff's appendix was abnormal but did not evidence acute or 

chronic appendicitis.

Plaintiff remained hospitalized for several days following surgery. He 

subsequently experienced pain and discomfort at the incision site and 
3

A-3045-16T4

complained of recurrent diarrhea. Plaintiff underwent two surgeries to correct 

hernias at the incision site, and, at the time of trial, was contemplating a third 

hernia operation.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging he deviated from 

accepted medical standards and that he failed to obtain plaintiff's informed 

consent. The jury unanimously concluded plaintiff failed to prove defendant 

deviated from accepted medical standards. Plaintiff did not make a motion 

challenging that portion of the verdict in the Law Division, nor does he challenge 

that verdict on appeal.

The judge also asked the jury to answer two interrogatories on the issue 

of informed consent.

3. Did . . . defendant . . . give . . . plaintiff . . . all of 

the information that a reasonable patient in plaintiff['s] 

. . . position would expect defendant . . . to disclose in 

order that . . . plaintiff . . . could make an informed 

decision about the course of his treatment?

. . . .

4. Would a reasonably prudent patient under the 

circumstances have consented to the surgery, had he 

been fully informed?

[(Emphasis added).]
4

A-3045-16T4

The jury unanimously found that defendant failed to provide plaintiff with all 

necessary information. However, the jury also unanimously concluded that 

plaintiff would have consented to "the surgery" had he been fully informed.

Plaintiff moved for a new trial. He argued that the jury should have 

considered the informed consent issue separately as to both procedures, i.e., the 

laparoscopic diagnostic procedure/appendectomy and the hemicolectomy. 

Plaintiff contended the jury interrogatories on informed consent "were neither 

clear nor comprehensive[] and[] had a tendency to cause jury confusion." The 

judge denied plaintiff's motion and this appeal followed.

Before us, plaintiff reasserts the argument, contending the interrogatories 

were "incomplete, confusing, misleading and ambiguous," amounting to plain 

error that resulted in a "miscarriage of justice" requiring a new trial. 1 We have 

 

1 At trial, plaintiff submitted proposed interrogatories that asked whether 

defendant had obtained plaintiff's informed consent, and then asked the jury to 

consider separately whether "a reasonable person" would have consented to the 

laparoscopic appendectomy and whether "a reasonable person" would have 

consented to the hemicolectomy. Defendant objected and the judge proposed 

using the interrogatories she actually submitted to the jury. Plaintiff's counsel 

consented to the interrogatories, as long as he could argue in summation, as he 

in fact did, that defendant needed to obtain plaintiff's informed consent as to 

both procedures. Given these circumstances, plaintiff acknowledged before us 

that the plain error standard guides our review. See R. 2:10-2 (permitting the 

appellate court to review "in the interests of justice" any error not brought to the 
5

A-3045-16T4

considered the argument in light of the record and applicable legal standards. 

We affirm.

I.

Plaintiff's theme throughout trial was that defendant failed to obtain his 

informed consent prior to performing both the laparoscopic procedure and the 

hemicolectomy. We describe only that portion of the testimony necessary to 

place the legal issue before us in context.

It was undisputed that defendant recommended plaintiff undergo a 

diagnostic laparoscopic procedure with possible appendectomy. Plaintiff 

testified that defendant told him he could return home the day after the 

procedure. Alternatively, plaintiff could return home without undergoing the 

procedure but could possibly die if his appendix ruptured. It was disputed 

whether defendant offered plaintiff the option of admission to the hospital for 

further observation.

Plaintiff signed two consent forms: a "Consent for Medical Treatment" at 

11:30 a.m. before he met defendant for the first time in the emergency room;

2

 

 

attention of the trial court if it "is of such a nature as to have been clearly capable 

of producing an unjust result").

2 Neither form is in the appellate record.
6

A-3045-16T4

and a "Consent to Operate" prior to surgery.3 Plaintiff testified that he believed 

he was only consenting to a laparoscopic appendectomy.

Defendant wrote on the "Consent to Operate" form — "[d]iagnostical 

laparoscopy, possible appendectomy, possible open laparotomy" — as the 

procedures for which he was obtaining plaintiff's consent. The form also stated: 

"[i]f any unforeseen condition arises in the course of the operation calling [the 

doctor's] judgment for procedures in addition to or different from those now 

contemplated, I further request and authorize [the doctor] to do whatever [the 

doctor] deems advisable." The form further provided: "[t]he nature and purpose 

of the operation, possible alternative methods of treatment, the risk involved and 

the possibility of complications have been fully explained to me by my 

physician."

We need not describe the particulars of the surgery, except to say that 

defendant acknowledged there were other options available to investigate the 

lesion instead of performing a hemicolectomy. Defendant could have performed

 

3

 The parties disputed when plaintiff signed this second consent form. Plaintiff 

testified he signed it while on the gurney immediately before surgery, although 

at his deposition, plaintiff could not recall when he signed the form. Defendant 

testified that he did not have the form with him when he discussed its contents 

with plaintiff, but specified that the discussion occurred in the emergency room.
7

A-3045-16T4

a biopsy, or, he could have stopped the procedure and discussed plaintiff's 

options, including a further "work . . . up" by himself or another doctor, and a 

possible second surgery. 

Plaintiff testified that he would not have consented to the laparoscopic 

appendectomy had he known the option existed for admission to the hospital 

with continued observation. He also testified that he would not have consented 

to the hemicolectomy to treat an abnormality that may or may not have been 

cancerous. Rather, plaintiff would have consulted his primary care doctor or 

obtained a second opinion.

Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Robert Villare, a board certified surgeon, testified 

that admission to the hospital for further observation prior to any laparoscopic 

procedure was a reasonable option that defendant should have offered to 

plaintiff. Dr. Villare also asserted that defendant should have withdrawn the 

laparoscopic equipment after removing plaintiff's appendix and provide plaintiff 

with options regarding the lesion on his colon. 

Dr. John Morris testified as defendant's surgical expert. Dr. Morris 

acknowledged that a physician should advise a patient of all "medically 

reasonable" courses of treatment. Although he testified at trial that admitting 

plaintiff for observation was not "reasonable given []his presentation," Dr. 
8

A-3045-16T4

Morris stated at his deposition that admitting plaintiff to "perform serial 

examinations[,] . . . follow his clinical course, follow his laboratory values and 

potentially repeat imaging" was an available option. 

Dr. Morris opined that defendant's decision to perform the hemicolectomy 

was appropriate. He asserted that the consent form and any discussion defendant 

had with plaintiff appropriately dealt with "situations that arise, albeit unusual, 

where you have to go to Plan B[.]" 

The judge followed the model jury charge as to informed consent. After 

deliberating for several hours, the jury sent out a two-part question:

[R]egarding Question 4: Are we to understand that 

"fully informed" means aware of the presence of the 

lesion?

[W]hat is "the surgery"; i.e., is "the surgery" the 

appendectomy or the hemicolectomy?

With counsels' consent, the judge provided the jury with the following response:

With respect . . . to what constitutes "fully 

informed," it is what a reasonably prudent patient 

would want to know under the circumstances. . . .

With respect to [q]uestion [n]umber [two], the 

"surgery" is the surgery in its entirety, including both 

the appendectomy and the hemicolectomy.
9

A-3045-16T4

Jury deliberations continued into a second day, during which the jury asked for 

and heard the cross-examination and redirect testimony of defendant, before 

returning its verdict.

In denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, the judge reasoned that 

evidence about plaintiff's pain was of "particular importance" to the jury. She 

noted the jury could reasonably accept that plaintiff's pain was potent enough to 

require a visit to the emergency room, had progressed over three to four days, 

and that plaintiff experienced increased pain while in the emergency room 

despite being given pain medication. The judge observed that plaintiff's 

credibility was "hurt somewhat" because he seemingly attempted to minimize 

his pain during his testimony. 

The judge said plaintiff's credibility went directly to the issue of informed 

consent, because plaintiff argued that he should have been given the option of 

admission and observation, and that even in the midst of surgery, he should have 

been offered opportunities for additional testing instead of the hemicolectomy. 

The court explained it was "fair to conclude that the jury believed . . . [plaintiff] 

was in significant pain and that, presented with the question of 'Would a 

reasonably prudent patient under the circumstances have consented to the 
10 A-3045-16T4

surgery had he been fully informed,'" "the jury clearly and understandably said 

yes . . . ." 

The judge stated that while the focus of plaintiff's case seemed to be on 

the hemicolectomy, plaintiff's arguments that defendant should have obtained 

informed consent for both the appendectomy and the hemicolectomy were clear 

to the jury. She reasoned that the jury found a reasonably prudent person, "fully 

advised as to either procedure," would have consented to the surgery in light of 

the evidence and credibility issues of plaintiff.

II.

Rule 4:49-1(a) provides that the trial court shall grant a motion for a new 

trial if "having given due regard to the opportunity of the jury to pass upon the 

credibility of the witnesses, it clearly and convincingly appears that there was a 

miscarriage of justice under the law." We review the denial of a motion for a 

new trial using the same standard as the trial judge and, therefore, reverse only 

if "there was a miscarriage of justice under the law." Risko v. Thompson Muller 

Auto. Grp., Inc., 206 N.J. 506, 522 (2011) (citing Bender v. Adelson, 187 N.J. 

411, 435 (2006)). In our review, however, we "must give 'due deference' to the 

trial court's 'feel of the case.'" Ibid. (quoting Jastram v. Kruse, 197 N.J. 216, 

230 (2008)).
11 A-3045-16T4

"A verdict sheet is intended for recordation of the jury's verdict and is not 

designed to supplement oral jury instructions." State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161, 

196 (2010) (citing State v. Reese, 267 N.J. Super. 278, 287 (App. Div. 1993)). 

We note that plaintiff does not challenge any aspect of the judge's instructions.

The Court has clearly stated "that interrogatories, like any other 

instructions to a jury, [a]re 'not grounds for a reversal unless they [a]re 

misleading, confusing or ambiguous.'" Mogull v. CB Com. Real Estate Grp., 

162 N.J. 449, 467 (2000) (quoting Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., 148 

N.J. 396, 418 (1997)). When there is no objection to the interrogatories, as in 

this case, "we must determine whether the interrogatories were so misleading, 

confusing, or ambiguous that they produced an unjust result." Id. at 468.

We acknowledge that "[w]here there are multiple allegations, multiple 

interrogatories are not only the best way to focus the jury's attention on the 

details of the case but also to ascertain, with some degree of specificity, what 

the jury has actually determined." Ponzo v. Pelle, 166 N.J. 481, 492 (2001) 

(citing Kassick v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 120 N.J. 130, 134 (1990)). In 

Ponzo, for example, the Court found reversible error when the trial court 

submitted a single interrogatory, even though the plaintiff "advanced three 

distinct injuries from the accident, the existence of only two of which [the 
12 A-3045-16T4

defendant] disputed," and where the defendant "advanced entirely distinct 

defenses to the different claims." Ibid. 

However, in Newmark-Shortino v. Buna, the plaintiff asserted separate 

claims that the defendant doctor deviated from accepted medical standards on 

two different days. 427 N.J. Super. 285, 309 (App. Div. 2012). The judge 

submitted a single interrogatory. Id. at 310. Although we reversed because the 

judge failed to charge the jury on informed consent, id. at 308-09, we found that 

despite the plaintiff's multiple claims, the submission of a single interrogatory 

on medical negligence, was not "'confusing' and . . . there was [no] need to 

separate plaintiffs' allegations of deviation into 'finely diced interrogatories.'" 

Id. at 311 (quoting Ponzo, 166 N.J. at 492).

Here, it may have been preferable to provide the jury with separate 

interrogatories. However, in answering the jury's question, the judge made clear 

that the "surgery" referenced in the interrogatory was "the surgery in its entirety, 

including both the appendectomy and the hemicolectomy." In fact, as the 

answer to interrogatory three demonstrates, the jury accepted plaintiff's 

contention that defendant failed to provide him with all necessary information 

regarding options to the surgery, i.e., the appendectomy and the hemicolectomy, 

so as to permit an informed choice. As the judge persuasively reasoned in 
13 A-3045-16T4

denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, the jury simply refused to credit 

plaintiff's assertion that he would not have submitted to the surgery, either the 

appendectomy, the hemicolectomy, or both, if properly informed. 

Under these circumstances, we agree with the trial judge. It does not 

"clearly and convincingly appear[] that there was a miscarriage of justice under 

the law." R. 4:49-1(a).

Affirmed.