SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0027-22 

JESSICA WASHINGTON, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NEWARK BOARD OF 

EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY 

HOSPITAL,1 and CITY OF 

NEWARK, 

 Defendants-Respondents.

____________________________

Argued October 3, 2023 – Decided December 19, 2023 

Before Judges Sumners and Rose. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-4225-21.

David E. Maran argued the cause for appellant (Maran 

& Maran, PC, attorneys; David E. Maran, on the briefs).

Sarah K. Delahant argued the cause for respondent 

Newark Board of Education (Methfessel & Werbel, 

attorneys; Sarah K. Delahant, on the brief). 

1

 Improperly pled as University Hospital Medical Response. 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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.
2 A-0027-22

PER CURIAM 

 Plaintiff Jessica Washington, seeking damages for the wrongful death of 

her eight-year-old daughter, filed a complaint alleging multiple negligent acts, 

some committed by her daughter's teacher and others by a school nurse. The 

Newark Board of Education (Board) moved to dismiss the complaint for failure 

to provide an affidavit of merit (AOM), per the Affidavit of Merit statute (AMS) 

N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26 to -29, arguing Washington's claim that her daughter was 

overmedicated by a school nurse, a licensed professional as a registered nurse, 

required an AOM. In opposition, Washington submitted a sworn statement, 

claiming she was unable to provide an AOM because the Board had not 

responded to her request for her daughter's school records. Washington also 

claimed an AOM was not required for her allegations against the teacher, who, 

unlike the school nurse, was not a licensed professional. The trial court entered

an order dismissing Washington's complaint with prejudice. 

 Washington appeals, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing her 

complaint against the Board because: (1) she was excused from providing an 

AOM regarding the school nurse's conduct due to the Board's three-year delay 

in providing her the requested school records; and (2) her allegations regarding 
3 A-0027-22

the teacher's conduct did not require an AOM. We affirm in part and reverse in 

part. 

We agree with the dismissal of Washington's claims attributed to the 

school nurse's conduct because she failed to provide an AOM after the Board 

provided her the requested records. We disagree, however, with the dismissal 

of Washington's claims against the Board arising from the teacher's conduct 

because an AOM was not required for the teacher, a non-licensed professional 

under the AMS, and the Board could potentially be vicariously liable for the 

teacher's conduct. 

I.

 Washington's daughter Karaji Samiyah Jones, who had asthma, died on 

May 21, 2019, after going into cardiac arrest while eating in Washington's car 

after school one hour after Washington picked her up from elementary school 

and two hours class was dismissed. The next day, Washington went to school 

and sought information about Karaji's death, including records of medical 

treatment she received from the school nurse. Washington was unsuccessful. 

At Karaji's funeral on June 3, according to Washington, another teacher 

told her the school nurse may have improperly medicated Karaji on the day she 
4 A-0027-22

died. Washington thereafter made several more unsuccessful in-person records 

requests. 

 Almost two years after Karaji's death, Washington filed a self-represented 

complaint against the Board, University Hospital, and the City of Newark. 

Claims against the latter two defendants were dismissed.2 The complaint 

alleged: 

Karaji Jones was in school 05-21-19 when negligence 

[occurred]. I'm asking the school for information about 

what took place in school to lead to my daughter['s] 

death. I was told from kids' parents that my daughter['s] 

teacher was [dragging] her in the hallway then left her 

alone in the [midst] of her having an asthma attack. 

The complaint also alleged: 

1. On 05-21-19[,] Karaji S. Jones los[t] her life due to 

negligence on the behave [sic] of the school nurse and 

teacher. I was told by the teacher after her passing said 

the nurse gave my daughter 3 to many treatment[s]. 

2. Karaji['s] twin sister also states that the teacher left 

my sickly daughter in the hallway crying after 

drag[g]ing her up and down the hallways. 

3. I was not notified of anything that took place 05-21-

19. The nurse nor the teacher called to tell me my child 

2

 Although Washington named University Hospital and the City of Newark in

her notice of appeal as respondents, they are not parties to this appeal. The City 

of Newark withdrew its motion to dismiss after Washington and the City signed 

a stipulation of dismissal. Washington did not oppose University Hospital's 

motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted. 
5 A-0027-22

was having any attacks. After school I picked my kids 

up from school and still wasn't aware of what took 

place. 

The complaint did not name as defendants the school nurse, the teacher, or any 

fictitious defendants. 

 When the Board answered the complaint, it demanded an AOM per 

N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27. Washington filed a motion for additional time to obtain 

an AOM. At a Ferreira3 conference, the court ordered Washington to provide 

an AOM by a date certain. 

Washington did not submit an AOM. On March 21, 2022, the Board 

cross-moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to provide an AOM. Eight days 

later, Washington emailed the Board's attorney requesting Karaji's school 

records. 

 The trial court denied the Board's cross-motion after Washington 

informed the court two nurses worked at Karaji's school on the day she died. 

The court permitted discovery to determine if the nurse who treated Karaji was 

3

 In Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Associates, our Supreme Court mandated 

a "case management conference be held within ninety days of the service of an 

answer in all malpractice actions," at which "the court will address all discovery 

issues, including whether an [AOM] has been served on [the] defendant" and 

"whether [the defendant] has any objections to the adequacy of the affidavit." 

178 N.J. 144, 154-55 (2003). 
6 A-0027-22

a registered professional nurse, subject to the requirements of the AMS.4 The 

Board agreed with the court that an AOM was not necessary to substantiate 

Washington's "claims against the teacher." 

 On May 5, Washington provided the Board the necessary authorization to 

release Karaji's records, leading to her receipt of the records nineteen days later. 

The records included the school nurse's log showing Karaji "was given no 

medication at the school on" the day she died. Washington provided these 

records to Karaji's pediatrician, who told Washington she could not provide an 

AOM against the nurse. 

 The Board subsequently filed a second motion to dismiss the complaint 

with prejudice for failure to provide an AOM. In support, each school nurse 

certified she was "a [r]egistered [n]urse in good standing" when Karaji died. 

Washington sent a letter to the trial court stating the Board had denied her 

Karaji's school records and the records it had provided were incomplete and 

unusable for obtaining an AOM. As such, she relied upon N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28 

by submitting "a sworn statement in lieu of affidavit" to be relieved of her 

obligation to provide an AOM. 

4

 As opposed to a licensed practical nurse. See N.J.S.A. 45:11-23(b). The AMS

only includes "registered professional nurse[s]," rather than all nurses, as 

licensed persons. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26(i). 
7 A-0027-22

 During oral argument, Washington questioned "why she still [needed] to 

get an [AOM] when the teacher don't need [one]." The trial court granted the 

Board's motion. In its bench decision, the trial court ruled Washington was 

required to provide an AOM because the nurse who allegedly treated her 

daughter was a registered nurse and therefore a licensed person under the AMS. 

Despite the court previously acknowledging an AOM was not necessary for 

allegations based on the teacher's conduct, the court's order dismissed the entire 

complaint with prejudice. 

II. 

A.

 Before us, Washington, now represented by counsel, repeats her claim that 

she followed the AMS, by submitting "a sworn statement in lieu of affidavit" 

after the Board repeatedly denied her in-person records requests. See N.J.S.A. 

2A:53A-28. She concedes the Board gave her the requested records but argues 

she may still submit a sworn statement in lieu of an AOM because the Board 

took over three years to fulfill her requests and, when it finally gave her "some 

records," it omitted many documents Washington expected to receive, such as 

report cards and medical records Washington gave the school when her daughter 

was alive. We disagree. 
8 A-0027-22

The AMS "imposes a special requirement upon plaintiffs bringing 

lawsuits claiming malpractice or negligence by certain enumerated 

professionals." Shamrock Lacrosse, Inc. v. Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg 

& Ellers, LLP, 416 N.J. Super. 1, 14 (App. Div. 2010). N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 

specifically provides: 

In any action for damages for personal injuries, 

wrongful death or property damage resulting from an

alleged act of malpractice or negligence by a licensed 

person in his profession or occupation, the plaintiff 

shall, within 60 days following the date of filing of the 

answer to the complaint by the defendant, provide each 

defendant with an affidavit of an appropriate licensed 

person that there exists a reasonable probability that the 

care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited in the 

treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the 

complaint, fell outside acceptable professional or 

occupational standards or treatment practices. 

This requirement allows courts to "identify and eliminate unmeritorious claims 

against licensed professionals and to permit meritorious claims to proceed 

efficiently through the litigation process." Meehan v. Antonellis, 226 N.J. 216, 

229 (2016) (citing Hubbard v. Reed, 168 N.J. 387, 395 (2001)). 

 The Legislature, however, did not seek to "create a minefield of hypertechnicalities [that] doom innocent litigants possessing meritorious claims." 

Ferreira, 178 N.J. at 151 (citation omitted). Thus, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28 provides: 
9 A-0027-22

An affidavit shall not be required . . . if the plaintiff 

provides a sworn statement in lieu of the affidavit

setting forth that: the defendant has failed to provide 

plaintiff with medical records or other records or 

information having a substantial bearing on preparation 

of the affidavit; a written request therefor along with, if 

necessary, a signed authorization by the plaintiff for 

release of the medical records or other records or 

information requested, has been made by certified mail 

or personal service; and at least 45 days have elapsed 

since the defendant received the request. 

 Washington's complaint—albeit unartfully—pled two claims, each 

addressing negligence by a different person's misconduct. A complaint can 

contain multiple claims because "the plaintiff alleges that the harm was caused 

by two or more independent torts that occurred at different times and are distinct 

from one another." Glassman v. Friedel, 249 N.J. 199, 223 (2021). With respect 

to the school nurse, Washington claimed the school nurse overmedicated her 

daughter. 

Based on our de novo review of the trial court's order, Hoover v. Wetzler, 

472 N.J. Super. 230, 235 (App. Div. 2022), we agree with the court that 

Washington did not meet N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28's sworn statement requirements 

with respect to the school nurse's alleged conduct. Washington's claim that the 

Board took three years to fulfill her records requests is irrelevant. To submit a 
10 A-0027-22

sworn statement, forty-five days must follow "a written request"5 for records, 

N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28 (emphasis added), which excludes Washington's initial inperson requests. The phrase "along with, if necessary, a signed authorization," 

id., suggests Washington must also authorize release before the waiting period 

begins, see Hubbard, 168 N.J. at 396 (calling for a "practical common[-]sense 

interpretation of the statute"). Accordingly, the forty-five-day waiting period 

began when Washington submitted the authorization form on May 5, 2022. 

Because the Board provided the records nineteen days later, Washington's 

sworn statement that she could not provide an AOM because the Board refused 

her records request was hollow. See Scaffidi v. Horvitz, 343 N.J. Super. 552, 

554 (App. Div. 2001) (holding "because the plaintiff in this action received all 

the medical records required to prepare an [AOM] within forty-five days after" 

submitting a proper records request, "the trial court correctly concluded that 

plaintiff was not entitled to relief from the requirement of providing an [AOM] 

within the time allowed under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27"). The doctor's inability to 

5

 Although N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28 requires "certified mail or personal service," 

there Washington's email satisfied the statute because there is no dispute the 

Board received the request. See Aster ex rel. Garofalo v. Shoreline Behav.

Health, 346 N.J. Super. 536, 545 n.6 (App. Div. 2002). 
11 A-0027-22

provide an AOM after reviewing the school records Washington obtained from 

the Board does not excuse Washington's failure to provide one. See id. at 559. 

N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28 is not a loophole to avoid providing an AOM for 

plaintiffs who cannot not find affiants willing to attest to their claims' 

meritoriousness. See Galik v. Clara Maass Med. Ctr., 167 N.J. 341, 350 (2001). 

The statute is reserved for plaintiffs who cannot obtain an AOM because "a 

recalcitrant defendant ha[s] failed to supply [the] required records." Davies v. 

Imbesi, 328 N.J. Super. 372, 376 (App. Div. 2000). Moreover, there is no 

indication there are additional unprovided records which would allow an AOM 

to support Washington's claims against the school nurse. Thus, the trial court's 

dismissal of claims related to the school nurse were properly dismissed with 

prejudice because Washington never provided an AOM substantiating the 

likelihood either school nurse "deviated from applicable standards of care" for 

registered nurses. See McCormick v. State, 446 N.J. Super. 603, 607 (App. Div. 

2016). 

B. 

 As for the claims against the teacher, Washington alleged the teacher 

dragged Karaji "up and down the hallways" during an asthma attack. She did 

not need provide an AOM to support her allegations against the teacher, who is 
12 A-0027-22

not a licensed person under the AMS. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26. She claims she is 

"entitled to discovery to find out if the teacher may have been negligent by 

failing to see to it that Karaji went to the nurse" for any treatment she needed on 

the day she died. During oral argument, the trial court and defense counsel 

differentiated Washington's "claims against the teacher" from her allegations 

against the nurse. The court, however, did not address the allegations against 

the teacher when considering the Board's motion to dismiss. 

 Because teachers are not licensed persons under the AMS, the court 

should not have dismissed the complaint's allegations pertaining to the teacher's

alleged conduct. Given the Board's motion was based solely on Washington's 

failure to supply an AOM, there was no basis to dismiss the entirety of her 

complaint––particularly, allegations regarding the teacher. 

 The Board contends we should affirm dismissal of the entire complaint

with prejudice because: (1) the complaint does not name the teacher as a codefendant and "neither includes a negligent supervision count nor articulates a 

factual basis against [her];" (2) Washington cannot amend her complaint to add 

them because the two-year statute of limitations to sue the Board for wrongful 

death, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, was not tolled under the fictitious party rule, R. 4:26-

4; and (3) "discovery will not reveal a viable claim against [the Board]." We 
13 A-0027-22

agree the fictitious party rule does not apply because the complaint names no

fictitious defendants. 

As to Washington's claim against the Board based on the teacher's 

conduct, she apparently relies on a vicarious liability theory of negligence. The

complaint names the Board—the employer—but alleges negligent conduct by 

the teacher—its employee. See Carter v. Reynolds, 175 N.J. 402, 409 (2003) 

(setting forth the test for vicarious liability as "(1) that [an employer-employee] 

relationship existed and (2) that the tortious act of the [employee] occurred 

within the scope of that employment"). Washington may sue an employer under 

vicarious liability without naming the employee as a co-defendant. Walker v. 

Choudhary, 425 N.J. Super. 135, 148-49 (App. Div. 2012). 

 In reversing the trial court's order and allowing Washington to pursue 

claims against the Board involving the teacher's conduct, we express no opinion 

on whether the claims have sufficient merit to survive any future Board motions 

or will prevail should this matter go to trial. 

 Affirmed as to claims arising from the school nurse's conduct, reversed as 

to claims arising from the teacher's conduct. We do not retain jurisdiction.