Opinion ID: 806790
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: AOM Statute

Text: The New Jersey legislature enacted the AOM Statute “as part of a tort reform package ‘designed to strike a fair balance between preserving a person’s right to sue and controlling nuisance suits.’” Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 579 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Palanque v. Lambert-Woolley, 774 A.2d 501, 505 (N.J. 2001)). It requires that a plaintiff filing “any action for damages for personal injuries, wrongful death or property damage resulting from an alleged act of malpractice or negligence by a licensed professional” provide each defendant with “an affidavit of an appropriate licensed person [stating] 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 10 acceptable professional or occupational standards or treatment practices.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A-27. This affidavit must be provided within 60 days after the defendant files its answer. Id. For good cause shown, the Statute provides for one extension period of an additional 60 days contiguous to the initial 60-day period. Id. The penalty for not following the AOM Statute is severe. Absent a showing of one of four limited exceptions, 3 the failure to file the affidavit “shall be deemed a failure to state a cause of action.” Id. § 2A:53A-29. Thus, unless the plaintiff can show one of the four exceptions, if an affidavit of merit is not filed within the 60- or extended 120-day period, the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Aware of this harsh consequence, the New Jersey Supreme Court instituted two safeguards to aid plaintiffs in complying with the AOM Statute. First, it directed that New Jersey’s Civil Case Information Sheet be amended to contain the question, “IS THIS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CASE?,” and boxes to check “YES” or 3 They are: (i) a statutory exception regarding lack of information; (ii) a “common knowledge” exception; (iii) substantial compliance with the affidavit of merit requirement; or (iv) “extraordinary circumstances” that warrant equitable relief. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A-28 (detailing the statutory exception); Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 836 A.2d 779, 782–83 (N.J. 2003) (detailing the “extraordinary circumstances” exception); Hubbard v. Reed, 774 A.2d 495, 501 (N.J. 2001) (establishing the “common knowledge” exception); Cornblatt v. Barow, 708 A.2d 401, 411–12 (N.J. 1996) (establishing that the substantial compliance doctrine applies to the affidavit requirement). 11 “NO.” Underneath the question is the following sentence: “IF YOU HAVE CHECKED ‘YES,’ SEE N.J.S.A. 2A:53A- 27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAW REGARDING YOUR OBLIGATION TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT.” See Burns v. Belafsky, 766 A.2d 1095, 1101 (N.J. 1999). Second, the New Jersey Supreme Court required that an accelerated case management conference be held within 90 days of the service of the answer in all malpractice actions. See Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 836 A.2d 779, 785 (N.J. 2003). At this conference, if the plaintiff has not filed an affidavit, the trial court is to remind it of the requirement. Id.