Opinion ID: 3011408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Pre-Statute Claims Issue

Text: The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that the [affidavit of merit] statute does not apply to malpractice actions filed on or after the effective date of the statute if the facts giving rise to the malpractice complaint occurred before that date. Cornblatt, 708 A.2d at 406. The Cornblatt 14 Court found the term occur as used in the statute to have the same meaning as accrue, so the statute only applies to causes of action which accrue on or after June 29, 1995. See id. at 408. A cause of action accrues when the facts occur which give rise to a right of action. The complaint in this action refers to three rhinoplasty proceedings, the first in January of 1994, the second in August of 1995, and the third in March of 1996. When deciding the defendant's motion to dismiss, the District Court looked beyond the complaint to determine whether the plaintiff had a claim that accrued prior to the effective date of the affidavit of merit statute. The Court dismissed the entire case based on the plaintiff's sworn answer to an interrogatory indicating that she was satisfied with the first Rhinoplasty performed by Defendant, the only one that pre-dated the statute. As the Court correctly noted, it is hornbook law that a court need not . . . consider a statement made to fend off a well supported motion to dismiss or for summary judgment which contradicts a prior statement made under oath. Op. at 5-6, n.1. We agree that the plaintiff is not now in a position to base a malpractice claim on the January 1994 surgery. We note, however, that the record at the time of the dismissal contained sworn allegations, in the form of an affidavit of the plaintiff and her answers to interrogatories, that the defendant's negligent treatment of the plaintiff included the injection of cortisone into her nose prior to the effective date of the statute. Also included in the record was a medical report of a licensed physician opining that the cortisone injections were contraindicated in her condition. App. at 61. We conclude that the District Court, having determined to go beyond the complaint in deciding defendant's motion to dismiss, could not, in fairness, ignore this competent evidence that pre-effective date malpractice occurred. Accordingly, we will remand for further proceedings on that claim only.