Court Opinion

ID: 9905779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 15:05:54.306009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:52.879880
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3718-22

TRACY SCAGGS,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PETER A. WISHNIE, D.P.M.,
and FAMILY FOOT & ANKLE
SPECIALISTS, LLC,

          Defendants-Appellants,

and

CHRISTINA SAWIRES, D.P.M.,

     Defendant.
_____________________________

                   Submitted November 8, 2023 – Decided November 30, 2023

                   Before Judges Sumners and Smith.

                   On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior
                   Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth
                   County, Docket No. L-2939-22.
            Buckley Theroux Kline & Cooley, LLC, attorneys for
            appellants (Jeremy P. Cooley, of counsel; Daniel R.
            Esposito and Michael P. Opacki, on the briefs).

            Drazin & Warshaw, PC, attorneys for respondent
            (Justin L. Drazin, of counsel; Steven L. Kessel, on the
            brief).

PER CURIAM

      Plaintiff Tracy Scaggs sued defendants Peter A. Wishnie, D.P.M.,

Christina Sawires, D.P.M, and Family Foot and Ankle Specialists, LLC.

alleging medical malpractice related to surgery on her infected toe. The same

day suit was filed, plaintiff's counsel mailed a request for medical records to

defendants stating: "[P]lease provide a complete, certified copy of all records

pertaining to Tracy Scaggs.       Please include typed transcription of any

handwritten notes. A signed medical authorization is enclosed. Please note

these records are necessary in the preparation of an [a]ffidavit of [m]erit

[(AOM)]."

      When defendants failed to provide the medical records within forty-five

days, plaintiff filed a motion to waive the statutory requirement that she file an

AOM because she was unable to do so without the records. See N.J.S.A.

2A:53A-28. Fourteen days after the motion was filed, and prior to the adjourned

                                                                            A-3718-22
                                        2
oral argument date of March 31, 2023, defendants provided plaintiff her medical

records.

      The day plaintiff's motion was argued, defendants1 filed a motion to

dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to supply an AOM within 120 days of

defendants' answer per the Affidavit of Merit Statute (AMS), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-

26 to -29. At argument, the motion judge requested supplemental briefing on

the waiver motion as well as the motion to dismiss, which was returnable a

month later. The judge advised the parties the motions would be heard together.

About two weeks before the motions' argument, plaintiff served an AOM on

defendants at a Ferreira2 conference.

      At the motions' oral argument, plaintiff contended the AOM should be

waived because she certified defendants failed to comply with the AMS by

timely providing her the medical records needed to prepare an AOM.

1
  Sawires later withdrew her motion to dismiss for failure to provide an AOM.
She is not a party to this appeal. References hereafter to "defendants," do not
include her.
2
  In Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 178 N.J. 144, 154-55 (2003), the
Court mandated that a "case management conference be held within ninety days
of the service of an answer in all malpractice actions," at which time "the court
will address all discovery issues, including whether an [AOM] has been served
on defendant. . . . If no affidavit has been served, the court will remind the parties
of their obligations under the statute and case law."
                                                                               A-3718-22
                                          3
Defendants opposed, asserting "plaintiff failed to identify with any specificity

what medical records were required to be produced necessary for the preparation

of the [AOM]" or "demonstrate that the records requested had a substantial

bearing on [the] preparation of the affidavit."

      The judge reserved decision and thereafter issued separate orders and

written statements of reasons granting plaintiff's motion to waive the AOM

requirement and denying defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

      In granting plaintiff's motion to waive, the judge stated:

            While the [c]ourt remains concerned that [p]laintiff is
            using N.J.S.A. 2A:53-28 as a sword and not a shield for
            when those defendants have not provided essential
            medical records. See, [e.g.], Davies v. Imbesi, [328
            N.J. Super. 372, 376] (App Div. 2000) (finding "the
            Legislature recognized that in certain instances a
            plaintiff might be unable to supply an [AOM] because
            a recalcitrant defendant had failed to supply required
            records"). In N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28, the Legislature
            required only one thing: a sworn statement that the
            defendant failed to respond within forty-five days to a
            written request for medical records or other information
            "having a substantial bearing on [the] preparation of the
            affidavit." Here[,] . . . defendants did not provide any
            medical records, so clearly the medical records would
            have had a substantial bearing on the preparation of the
            affidavit.

      In denying defendant's motion to dismiss, the judge determined:

            The [c]ourt has concluded that . . . [p]laintiff was
            exempted from the affidavit of merit requirement

                                                                          A-3718-22
                                        4
            pursuant to [N.J.S.A.] 2A:53A-28. Thus, there is no
            failure to state a claim based on the missing [AOM]
            because the [AOM] did not have to be provided. Hence,
            this motion should not be granted as [d]efendants have
            failed to prove that relief cannot be provided. The
            [AOM] has now been provided by . . . plaintiff although
            provided more than 120 days after the filing of the
            answer. The [c]ourt however, had concluded that
            providing an [AOM] was not necessary.

      We granted defendants leave to appeal. Defendants essentially reiterate

the arguments rejected by the motion judge.       They contend their delay in

providing plaintiff the medical records did not have a substantial bearing on her

preparation of the AOM; thus, she was still obligated to provide an AOM.

Plaintiff should not be permitted to use the waiver exemption as a sword to

defeat the AMS's requirements, according to defendants. Citing Scaffidi v.

Horvitz, 343 N.J. Super. 552, 559 (App. Div. 2001), defendants assert plaintiff's

request for "all records" was inadequate due to her failure to "specif[y] what

medical records were required . . . for the preparation of the AOM." Moreover,

plaintiff should have sent the records request to defense counsel instead of

sending it directly to defendants—or communicated defendant's failure to

comply to defense counsel after receiving the answer. Defendants therefore

maintain plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice for not filing

a timely AOM.

                                                                           A-3718-22
                                       5
      In our de novo review of the motion judge's orders, see Perez v. Zagami,

LLC, 218 N.J. 202, 209 (2014) (prescribing de novo review of statutory

interpretation issues); R. 4:6-2(e), we conclude there is no merit to defendants'

arguments and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the motion

judge. We add the following brief comments.

      "In the early stages of a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must

provide an affidavit from an equivalently credentialed physician attesting 'that

there exists a reasonable probability that the' defendant physician's treatment

'fell outside acceptable professional' standards." Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377,

382 (2011) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27). "Under the [AMS], the failure to file

an appropriate affidavit within the statutory time limits may result in dismissal

of even meritorious cases." Ibid. (internal citation omitted).

      In accordance with N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28, a plaintiff may be exempt from

providing an AOM by certifying it could not be provided because defendants

failed to satisfy a medical records request. See also Aster ex rel. Garofalo v.

Shoreline Behav. Health, 346 N.J. Super. 536, 545-46 (App. Div. 2002). A

certification may be presented at the Ferreira conference, which was purposely

created to "remind the parties of the sanctions that will be imposed if they do

not fulfill their [AOM] obligations." Ferreira, 178 N.J. at 147.

                                                                           A-3718-22
                                        6
      Well in advance of the Ferreira conference, plaintiff complied with

N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28 by presenting a certification––stating defendants failed to

timely provide medical records needed to prepare an AOM––with her motion to

waive the AOM requirement. This differs from Scafidi, where the plaintiff

sought records through uniform interrogatories and a notice to produce

documents without sending a separate request per N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28, stating

the records were needed to prepare an AOM. 343 N.J. Super. at 559. We thus

held the plaintiff was not excluded from filing a timely AOM because of the

failure to comply with N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28. Id.

      Plaintiff here fully complied with the statute. Defendants moreover have

not made a showing sufficient to overcome the presumption "that the records

[they] failed to furnish had 'a substantial bearing on preparation of the

affidavit.'"   Aster, 346 N.J. Super at 544 (quoting N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28).

Accordingly, plaintiff was exempt from filing an AOM. And because plaintiff

was exempt––even though an AOM was provided after receipt of the medical

records––there was no legal basis to dismiss her complaint for failure to provide

a timely AOM.

      Affirmed.

                                                                           A-3718-22
                                       7