Title: George G. Couri v.Dr. Richard Gardner
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: a-40-01
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: July 29, 2002

Couri retained , Dr. Gardner, a licensed psychiatrist, as a potential expert witness in connection with a divorce proceeding involving his right to parenting time with his daughter. Couri paid Dr. Gardner $12,000. Dr. Gardner interviewed Couri, his wife, and their daughter, and prepared a preliminary report that he distributed simultaneously to Couri s wife, his attorney, and their daughter s court-appointed guardian ad litem. Dr. Gardner never obtained Couri s consent to distribute the report to the other parties. Consequently, Couri filed a complaint against Dr. Gardner for, among other causes, breach of contract. Dr. Gardner moved to dismiss Couri s complaint for failure to submit an affidavit of merit. Couri contended that he was not required to submit an affidavit because his claim was based on breach of contract and not negligence. The trial court dismissed Couri s complaint for failure to submit the affidavit. A divided Appellate panel affirmed, holding that Couri s claim was a malpractice action for professional negligence requiring expert testimony and not a contract action. Judge Rodriguez dissented, concluding that the issue was not deviation from the accepted standards of a psychiatrist, but, rather, that Dr. Gardner did not comply with the terms of the retainer agreement. Couri appealed as of right based on Judge Rodriguez s dissent. HELD: George G. Couri s breach of contract claim does not require proof of a deviation from the professional standard of care to be provided by a psychiatrist, and thus the claim lies beyond the purview of the Affidavit of Merit Statute. The dismissal of Couri s complaint is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Law Division. 1. The overall purpose of the Affidavit of Merit Statute is to ensure that meritorious lawsuits are identified at an early stage of litigation. The applicability of the statute to Couri s claim depends on the specific nature of Couri s claim and whether the statute applies to breach of contract claims generally. When statutory language is clear on its face, the role of this Court is to enforce the statute according to its terms, but when a literal interpretation conflicts with the overall purpose of a statute, that interpretation should be rejected. (Pp. 5-7) 2. The Court must consider three prongs in analyzing whether the Affidavit of Merit Statute applies to a particular claim: the nature of the injury; the cause of action; and, the standard of care. The first prong requires that the action must be for damages for personal injuries, wrongful death or property damage. In this case, Couri ultimately sought a return of his $12,000 retainer and other litigation costs. Therefore, his claim does not satisfy the first prong of the statute. This alone is sufficient for a reversal. However, the Court is faced with a conflict in the Appellate Division, whether the statute should apply to a breach of contract claim, and will therefore address that issue as well. (P. 8-10) 3. There is a divergence of opinion in the Appellate Division whether the Affidavit of Merit statute ever should apply to a breach of contract claim. In Darwin v. Gooberman, 339 N.J. Super 467 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 169 N.J 609 (2001), the Appellate Division held that the Affidavit of Merit Statute plainly did not apply to a breach of contract claim. In Manganaro Consulting Eng rs v. Carneys Point Township Sewerage Auth., 344 N.J. Super 343 (App. Div. 2001), the Appellate Division held that the statute applied to a breach of contract claim because the underlying factual allegations were of professional malpractice. In a third case, Levinson v. D Alfonso &amp; Stein, 320 N.J. Super 312 (App. Div. 1999), the Appellate Division determined that the statute was not applicable, but its reasoning was unclear. In Cornblatt v. Barow, 153 N.J 218 (1998), this Court implicitly recognized that a breach of contract claim for failing to perform up to professional standards was within the ambit of the statute, regardless of the phrasing. (Pp. 10-15) 4 . It is not the label placed on the action that is pivotal but the nature of the legal inquiry. When presented with a tort or contract claim asserted against a professional specified in the Affidavit of Merit Statute, rather than focusing on whether the claim is denominated as tort or contract, attorneys and courts should determine if the underlying factual allegations require proof of a deviation from the professional standard of care applicable to that specific profession. If such proof is required, an affidavit of merit is required for that claim, unless some exception applies. In this way, courts can assure that claims against licensed professionals acting in a professional capacity that require proof of ordinary negligence but not of a deviation from professional standards are not encompassed by the statute. (Pp. 15-19) 5. In the case at bar, Couri hired Dr. Gardner as a potential expert witness. Implicit in the professional relationship was the condition that Dr. Gardner would provide his report to Couri only, and that it was with Couri s discretion whether to use the report and provide it to others. Although Dr. Gardner s unauthorized dissemination of the report also might implicate a deviation from prevailing professional standards of practice, proof of that deviation is not essential to the establishment of Couri s right to recover based on breach of contract and the claim thus lies beyond the purview of the Affidavit of Merit Statute. (Pp. 19-21) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the Law Division for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, and LaVECCHIA join in Justice ZAZZALI s opinion. JUSTICE VERNIERO did not participate. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Defendant-Respondent. Argued March 12, 2002 Decided July 29, 2002 On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Robert H. Solomon argued the cause for appellant (Nagel Rice Dreifuss &amp; Mazie, attorneys; Mr. Solomon and Bruce H. Nagel, of counsel; Mr. Solomon, Mr. Nagel and Randee M. Matloff, on the briefs). Debra V. Urbanowicz-Pandos argued the cause for respondent (Duran &amp; Pandos, attorneys; Ms. Urbanowicz-Pandos and Doreen A. Kunz, on the brief). The opinion of the Court was delivered by ZAZZALI, J. In this appeal we are called upon to determine the applicability of the Affidavit of Merit Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26 to -29 (statute) to plaintiff s claim. Specifically, we must decide whether plaintiff George Couri was required to submit an affidavit of merit in an action brought against a psychiatrist retained by plaintiff as a potential expert witness in connection with visitation rights in a matrimonial action. Plaintiff contends that by the psychiatrist disseminating his preliminary report without plaintiff s consent to plaintiff s wife and to their child s guardian ad litem, the psychiatrist breached his contract with plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff argues, pursuant to the plain language of the statute, he was not required to file an affidavit of merit. The trial court concluded that the action was for malpractice and not breach of contract, thus requiring an affidavit of merit. A majority of the Appellate Division affirmed. In his dissent, Judge Rodr guez found that plaintiff s claim sounded in contract and thus no affidavit of merit was required pursuant to the statute. We agree with Judge Rodr guez that no affidavit of merit was required in plaintiff s case and thus reverse but on different grounds. A licensed person is defined as a licensed accountant, architect, attorney, dentist, engineer, physician, podiatrist, chiropractor, registered nurse or health care facility. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26. With certain exceptions not relevant here, failure to provide an affidavit results in dismissal of the complaint. As stated by this Court, the overall purpose of the statute is to require plaintiffs in malpractice cases to make a threshold showing that their claim is meritorious, in order that meritless lawsuits readily could be identified at an early stage of litigation. Cornblatt v. Barow, 153 N.J. 218, 242 (1998) (quoting In re Petition of Hall, 147 N.J. 379, 391 (1997)). Defendant maintains, and the majority of the Appellate Division held, that plaintiff s claim against defendant is a malpractice claim and thus the statute applies. Plaintiff responds, and the dissent found, that the claim against defendant is a breach of contract claim and, pursuant to the plain language of the statute, the statute is not applicable to his claim. In determining the applicability of the statute to plaintiff s claim, we are called on to determine both the specific nature of plaintiff s claim and whether the statute applies to breach of contract claims. Because the latter determination requires us to engage in statutory interpretation, our overriding goal [in respect of that determination] must be to determine the Legislature s intent. State, Dep t of Law and Pub. Safety v. Gonzalez, 142 N.J. 618, 627 (1995). The first step in that quest is the consideration of the plain meaning of the statutory language. Kimmelman v. Henkels &amp; McCoy, Inc., 108 N.J. 123, 128 (1987). If that language is clear on its face, the sole function of the court[] is to enforce it according to its terms. Sheeran v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 80 N.J. 548, 556 (1979) (citation omitted). However, we also have stressed that when a literal interpretation of individual statutory terms or provisions would lead to results inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute, that interpretation should be rejected. Hubbard v. Reed, 168 N.J. 387, 392-93 (2001) (quoting Cornblatt, supra, 153 N.J. at 242 (citation and quotations omitted)). NO. A-40 SEPTEMBER TERM 2001 ON APPEAL FROM Appellate Division, Superior Court GEORGE G. COURI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DR. RICHARD GARDNER, Defendant-Respondent. DECIDED July 29, 2002 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Zazzali CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY