Court Opinion

ID: 9926618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 15:05:43.887336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:48.092007
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-2014-21

CATHLEEN FENYAK,

          Plaintiff-Appellant/
          Cross-Respondent,

v.

ST. PETER'S UNIVERSITY
HOSPITAL, LINDA CARROLL,
and PAMELA HARMON,

          Defendants-Respondents/
          Cross-Appellants.

                   Submitted December 5, 2023 – Decided January 25, 2024

                   Before Judges Sumners and Rose.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-2522-18.

                   Cahn & Parra, LLC, attorneys for appellant/cross-
                   respondent (Steven D. Cahn, on the briefs).

                   Norris      McLaughlin      PA,      attorneys    for
                   respondents/cross-appellants (Patrick Thomas Collins,
                   of the briefs).
PER CURIAM

      In this wrongful termination action, plaintiff Cathleen Fenyak, a

registered nurse, filed a six-count complaint in the Law Division seeking

compensable and punitive damages against her former employer, St. Peter's

University Hospital, its Vice President of Patient Care Services, Chief Nursing

Officer, Linda Carroll, and Director of Women and Children's Services, Pamela

Harmon. Among her claims, plaintiff asserted she was fired after she "blew the

whistle" in violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA),

N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8. Defendants countered plaintiff was terminated because

she failed to follow the Hospital's documentation process for dispensing

medication and her alleged whistleblowing occurred after she was confronted

with the results of the Hospital's investigation.

      On November 12, 2021, the trial court issued a case management consent

order extending the discovery end date to January 7, 2022, providing deadlines

for the fact depositions of two witnesses by each party, and scheduling a return

date for dispositive motions and a March 21, 2022 peremptory trial date.

Plaintiff also moved to compel certain responses to her second and third requests

for documents. Defendants cross-moved for a protective order and moved for

summary judgment seeking dismissal of the remaining three counts of plaintiff's

                                                                           A-2014-21
                                         2
complaint. In her opposition to defendants' cross-motion, plaintiff dismissed

her Pierce1 claim, leaving her CEPA and defamation claims for disposition.

Earlier, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her negligence, breach of contract, and

age discrimination claims.

      Following oral argument on March 4, 2022, the motion judge, who had

not previously managed the case, issued a bench decision dismissing plaintiff's

remaining two claims on summary judgment. At the conclusion of the hearing,

the judge summarily denied plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and did not

address defendants' cross-motion for a protective order. That same day, the

judge issued separate orders memorializing his oral decision on defendants'

summary judgment motion and plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, but did

not enter an order regarding defendants' cross-motion for a protective order. On

April 14, 2022, the judge filed an amplification statement pursuant to then-Rule

2:5-1(b), thoroughly addressing all three motions.

      Plaintiff now appeals from the March 4, 2022 orders, arguing the motion

judge failed to: (1) resolve her discovery motion on the merits; (2) comply with

the time requirements set forth in Rule 2:5-1(b) and apply the correct summary

1
   Pierce v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 84 N.J. 58, 72 (1980) (affording an at-will
employee a wrongful discharge cause of action "when the discharge is contrary
to a clear mandate of public policy").
                                                                          A-2014-21
                                       3
judgment standard; and (3) properly analyze her claims under CEPA. 2

Defendants cross-appeal from the judge's April 14, 2022 decision 3 denying their

motion for a protective order.

        We reject plaintiff's contentions, concluding she: failed to demonstrate

exceptional circumstances warranted her belated non-dispositive discovery

motion; was afforded a full opportunity to address the judge's amplified

statement in her merits brief; and failed to establish a prima facie claim under

CEPA.       We affirm the orders denying plaintiff's discovery motion and

dismissing her complaint substantially for the reasons expressed by the motion

judge in his cogent amplified statement, thereby rendering moot defendants'

cross-appeal.

                                         I.

        As a preliminary matter, we reject plaintiff's procedural and substantive

challenges to the judge's amplification statement. Plaintiff filed an initial notice

of appeal (NOA) on March 9, 2022, followed by an amended NOA on March

15, 2022, correcting certain deficiencies. At that time, Rule 2:5-1(b) authorized

the trial court to supplement its prior opinion within fifteen days of the filing of

2
    Plaintiff does not appeal from the dismissal of her defamation count.
3
    The motion judge did not enter an order denying defendants' cross-motion.
                                                                              A-2014-21
                                         4
an NOA.4 Although the judge's amplification statement was filed thirty days

after plaintiff filed her amended NOA, plaintiff did not attempt to file her merits

brief until four months later on August 29, 2022. After correcting a series of

deficiencies, plaintiff's amended merits brief was filed on October 17, 2022,

which fully addressed the judge's amplified statement. Because the rule does

not bar our consideration of the statement for its late submission and plaintiff

was not prejudiced by the judge's delay in filing the statement, there is no merit

to her procedural challenge. For the reasons that follow, we reject plaintiff's

contention that the judge failed to apply the correct summary judgment standard.

                                        II.

      We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Conforti

v. County of Ocean, 255 N.J. 142, 162 (2023). Employing the same standard as

the trial court, we review the record to determine whether there are material

factual disputes and, if not, whether the undisputed facts viewed in the light

most favorable to plaintiff, as the non-moving party, nonetheless entitle

defendants to judgment as a matter of law. See Samolyk v. Berthe, 251 N.J. 73,

78 (2022); Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995); see

4
  The rule was amended, effective September 1, 2022, affording the trial court
thirty days to file an amplification statement. See R. 2:5-1(d).
                                                                             A-2014-21
                                        5
also R. 4:46-2(c). We owe no deference to the trial court's legal analysis or

interpretation of a statute. Palisades at Fort Lee Condo. Ass'n v. 100 Old

Palisade, LLC, 230 N.J. 427, 442 (2017).

      The pertinent facts are accurately set forth in the motion judge's

amplification statement and need not be reiterated in the same level of detail.

By way of brief background, to dispense and administer medications, the

Hospital utilized an automated cabinet system, known as AcuDose machines,

which were stationed throughout the hospital's various units and managed by the

pharmacy department.       To access medications, authorized hospital staff

members were required to log into the machines, input a password, and logout.

The machines tracked the identity of the user, the time of access, and the quantity

of medications added or removed from the cabinet utilized. A physician's order

was required to dispense medications; in the absence of an order, medications

were accessed by "overriding" the system. The machine recorded the overrides,

provided a medication inventory, and maintained "an audit trail of all activity

involving the access of medications in the cabinet."

      Plaintiff was assigned to the Hospital's Labor and Delivery Unit for most

of her thirty-year employment until she was terminated on December 15, 2017.

According to defendants, during the summer months that preceded plaintiff's

                                                                             A-2014-21
                                        6
firing, the pharmacy notified Harmon that the Unit's AcuDose discrepancy

reports revealed a high usage of Benadryl and Nubain, which required frequent

restocking. Harmon allegedly "addressed these issues during weekly leadership

meetings" with nurse managers, emphasizing "the importance of educating and

reminding the nursing staff [about] the importance of avoiding unnecessary

overrides in AcuDose." Defendants further claimed Harmon "addressed the

critical, procedural requirements that nurses must document all physician orders

and that the administration of the medication must also be documented in the

patient's medical record."

      At some point that summer, a nurse admitted she diverted medication from

the Unit's AcuDose machine after an investigation revealed she had removed

more than ten medications for her personal use. The nurse was not terminated

but she was reported to the State Board of Nursing and referred to a recovery

program for nurses.

      The medication discrepancies reported by the Unit's machine continued,

prompting Harmon to extend her investigation to all Unit nurses.            The

investigation revealed another nurse had diverted medications.            When

confronted, the nurse admitted her conduct, was removed from her management

position but not terminated, and referred to the recovery program for nurses.

                                                                          A-2014-21
                                       7
         However, the Unit's medication discrepancies continued.         This time,

Harmon expanded her investigation to include discrepancies tracked by the

Unit's     AcuDose    machine   for   other   controlled   substances,    including

hydromorphone, fentanyl, and oxycodone.         In her responses to defendants'

statement of uncontested material facts, plaintiff "admit[ted] she was not aware

of the details of Harmon's investigation" at that time.

         On November 16, 2017, the Unit's assistant nurse manager emailed

Harmon, expressing concern about two transactions made by plaintiff one week

earlier on November 9. Referencing the AcuDose machine's data, the nurse

claimed the AcuDose machine indicated on the first occasion, plaintiff accessed

medication for a patient, who had been discharged from the Unit; the second

time, the patient no longer was on the Unit floor.

         As a result of the nurse manager's complaint, Harmon conducted further

investigation. When deposed, Harmon stated the AcuDose machine revealed

plaintiff had unexplained documentation issues forty-seven times during the

eleven-month investigation.     The issues included administering medication

without a doctor's order or the absence of documentation indicating the

medication was provided to the patient.

                                                                             A-2014-21
                                        8
      On December 11, 2017, Harmon, Carroll, and a human resources manager

met with plaintiff concerning the discrepancies in her documentation.

According to Harmon's notes of the meeting, Carroll told plaintiff she "was

practicing outside the scope of her nursing practice by dispensing medications

without an order or documentation."

      Plaintiff testified at deposition that during the December 11 meeting, she

attempted to offer potential explanations – including that perhaps she had not

logged out and someone had used her information to access the medication – but

Harmon and Carroll were unconvinced. Plaintiff claimed they used her as "a

scapegoat" for the Unit's missing medications. She further stated Carroll was

concerned that the Joint Commission, an oversight organization, "would shut us

down . . . . if there was an investigation." Plaintiff responded, "there should be

an investigation." Plaintiff was not fired at that time.

      Four days later, however, plaintiff was served with a termination notice

during another meeting with the same personnel. Her termination notice stated

there were

             a total of 47 times that [she] dispensed medication from
             the [AcuDose machine] without a physician's order
             and/or [she] did not document the patient record that
             the medication had been administered. This is an
             egregious violation since [she] w[as] working outside
             [her] scope of practice when [she] dispensed the

                                                                            A-2014-21
                                         9
            medication without a physician's orders. Additionally,
            failure to document the patient's chart regarding
            medication administration is a very serious infraction.

      Before the motion judge, plaintiff argued she had engaged in protected

whistleblowing activity under CEPA.        In particular, plaintiff argued when

"confronted with the theft of medication . . . she told the vice president of the

company you have a systemic problem," which requires "an outside

investigation." Plaintiff further argued the parties disputed the reason for her

termination, claiming Harmon's initial report indicated medication was missing

but did not mention documentation was missing or that she had practiced outside

the scope of her nursing practice.

      In his amplification statement, the motion judge squarely addressed the

issues raised in view of the governing law. The judge accurately summarized

the four elements of a CEPA discriminatory retaliation claim. See Lippman v.

Ethicon, Inc., 222 N.J. 362, 380 (2015); see also Klein v. Univ. of Med. &

Dentistry of N.J., 377 N.J. Super. 28, 38 (App. Div. 2005). Pertinent to this

appeal, plaintiff was required to demonstrate she reasonably believed

defendants' conduct violated a "law, rule, regulation[,] or public policy"; she

engaged in whistleblowing activity under N.J.S.A. 34:19-3; defendants took

adverse employment action against her; and there existed a causal connection

                                                                           A-2014-21
                                      10
between her whistleblowing activity and defendants' adverse employment

action. See Klein, 377 N.J. Super. at 38.

      Quoting plaintiff's deposition testimony, the judge was satisfied plaintiff

first complained about the AcuDose machine at the December 11 meeting after

she was confronted with Harmon's investigation concerning her "47

documentation deficiencies, or instances of medication being provided without

a physician's order." Accordingly, the judge reiterated his oral decision, finding

plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of whistleblowing. The judge

elaborated:

                    As established by [p]laintiff's own testimony, she
              never raised a complaint about the AcuDose machine
              operating improperly until she had actually been called
              into a meeting and confronted about her 47 failures to
              properly document medication administration. She
              does not identify any law, rule, regulation, or clear
              mandate of public policy being violated by the alleged
              issues with the AcuDose system.

      Citing our decision in Hitesman v. Bridgeway Inc., 430 N.J. Super. 198,

211-12 (App. Div. 2013), aff'd, 218 N.J. 8 (2014), the judge further found he

also "could not discern any such law, rule, regulation or clear mandate of public

policy closely related to [p]laintiff's complaints about the AcuDose system,

which compelled the granting of summary judgment on her CEPA claim." The

judge explained: "Plaintiff . . . raised the issue of the AcuDose machine in an

                                                                            A-2014-21
                                        11
attempt to excuse her 47 medication documentation infractions. Plaintiff was

trying to protect her job, not trying to protect the public from the violation of a

law, rule, regulation, or clear mandate of public policy."

      Assuming for the sake of argument plaintiff had engaged in

whistleblowing activity, the judge found plaintiff "failed to establish the fourth

element of a CEPA claim." Quoting our Supreme Court's decision in Lippman,

222 N.J. at 380, the judge found plaintiff failed "to make a prima facie showing

that 'a causal connection exist[ed] between the whistle-blowing activity and the

adverse employment action.'" See also Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 177 N.J. 451, 462

(2003). The judge was persuaded the undisputed record established plaintiff did

not demonstrate "her termination was in response to her complaining about the

AcuDose machine and medication controls." Instead, the judge found the reason

for her termination was explicitly stated in her termination notice.

      Finally,   the   judge   found   plaintiff   failed    to   show   defendants'

nondiscriminatory "stated reason for termination" was pretextual, which would

otherwise trigger the burden-shifting framework established by the United

States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792

(1973). See also Massarano v. N.J. Transit, 400 N.J. Super. 474, 492 (App. Div.

2008) (reiterating New Jersey applies the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting

                                                                              A-2014-21
                                       12
approach to CEPA retaliation claims); Zappasodi v. Dep't of Corr., 335 N.J.

Super. 83, 88-91 (App. Div. 2000). Recognizing he was required to accept "as

true" defendants' stated reason for termination and make "no credibility

assessment," see St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 509 (1993), the

judge was satisfied plaintiff failed to rebut defendants' claim that plaintiff was

fired for "practicing outside of her scope as a registered nurse."

      On appeal, plaintiff argues the motion judge failed to view the facts in a

light most favorable to her as the non-moving party. She claims the judge

erroneously focused on whether she engaged in whistleblowing when he should

have focused on the causal connection between her "statements and objections

during the December 11, 2017 meeting and the termination of her employment

days later." To support her argument, plaintiff cites "various emails between

Harmon and Human Resources" and "four drafts" of plaintiff's termination

notice. She asserts a question of fact remains regarding her assertion that Carroll

and Harmon blamed her for the Unit's "widespread problems." Plaintiff also

maintains her request for an outside investigation during the December 11

meeting "me[t] the classic definition of a protected whistleblower activity."

Maintaining she established a prima facie CEPA retaliation claim, plaintiff also

argues defendants' reason for firing her was pretextual.

                                                                             A-2014-21
                                       13
      We have considered plaintiff's contentions in view of the applicable law

and the record before the motion judge and conclude they lack sufficient merit

to warrant further discussion in our written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We

affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the motion judge in his well-

reasoned amplification statement.

                                       III.

      Little need be said regarding plaintiff's contention that the judge

erroneously denied her motion to compel discovery while defendants' summary

judgment motion was pending. Plaintiff sought the disciplinary records of the

two nurses who were not terminated for their discrepancies; "discovery

concerning the pharmacy safety officer"; and an investigation report, which the

judge had reviewed in-camera prior to oral argument. Plaintiff claims the

information sought was "directly related to the critical issue in this case," i.e.,

"why was medication missing and unaccounted for in the . . . Unit in 2017."

      In his amplification statement, the judge noted his predecessor's

November 12, 2021 case management consent order permitted "only limited

additional discovery" and plaintiff failed to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances to reopen discovery. See R. 4:24-1(c). Moreover, the judge

found the investigation report he had reviewed pertained to an incident that

                                                                             A-2014-21
                                       14
occurred two years after plaintiff was terminated and did not involve issues

related to her dismissal. We conclude the judge correctly applied the court rules

and the law governing pending discovery while considering a summary

judgment motion. See Mohamed v. Iglesia Evangelica Oasis De Salvacion, 424

N.J. Super. 489, 498 (App. Div. 2012) (holding a party challenging a summary

judgment motion for incomplete discovery must demonstrate there is a

likelihood further discovery will provide information necessary to establish a

missing element in the case).

                                       IV.

      Finally, in view of our decision affirming the summary judgment

dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, defendants' cross-motion for a protective

order is rendered moot.      We note, however, the judge mentioned in his

amplification statement that had he denied the summary judgment motion the

protective order would have issued.

      The orders pertaining to plaintiff's appeal are affirmed; defendants' cross-

appeal is dismissed.

                                                                            A-2014-21
                                      15