In Moschella v. Hackensack Meridian Jersey Shore University Medical Center (A-7-23/088312) (Decided July 11, 2024), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that an affidavit of merit does not need to specify that the affiant reviewed medical records attesting to the merits of a claim.
Facts of Moschella v. Hackensack Meridian Jersey Shore University Medical Center
On July 20, 2018, plaintiff’s daughter, Alexandrianna Lowe, who suffered from an opioid addiction, was admitted to Hackensack Meridian Jersey Shore University Medical Center (JSUMC) for complications associated with Type 1 diabetes. Two days later, Lowe was found unresponsive. Hospital staff administered anti-opioid medication but failed to check Lowe’s blood sugar levels. An autopsy revealed Lowe had no illicit drugs in her system at the time of her death.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against JSUMC, Michael Carson, M.D., and John and Jane Does 1 through 100. The suit alleged that while Lowe was admitted at JSUMC, “numerous other persons, whose identities are currently unknown . . . were also involved in the provision of medical care to” Lowe. As is required by N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27, plaintiff submitted an AOM in support of the validity of her claim. Dr. Joseph Fallon prepared plaintiff’s AOM.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27, a plaintiff in an action against a licensed professional must produce an affidavit from an expert attesting to the merits of the claim. Issues regarding the AOM must be resolved at an accelerated case management conference conducted by the trial court in accordance with Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 178 N.J. 144, 154-55 (2003), otherwise known as a Ferreira conference.
The trial court, without holding a Ferreira conference, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, finding the Fallon AOM insufficient under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27. The court reasoned that the Fallon AOM did not state that Dr. Fallon reviewed any medical records, and it did not indicate that any named defendant committed negligence. The court further denied plaintiff’s claims that she substantially complied with the AOM statute’s requirements or that extraordinary circumstances warranted dismissal without prejudice. The Appellate Division affirmed.
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in Moschella v. Hackensack Meridian Jersey Shore University Medical Center
The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that the Fallon AOM complied with N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27.
“First, an AOM does not need to specify that the affiant reviewed medical records. Second, a doctor to whom the affidavit attributed negligence is the agent of a named defendant and is identified in the AOM as one of the John or Jane Doe defendants included in the complaint,” Justice Solomon wrote. “We therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand the matter for further proceedings. We stress once again the importance of the Ferreira conference in professional negligence actions.”
In reaching its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Courtemphasized that the dual purpose of the AOM statute is to weed out frivolous lawsuits early in the litigation while, at the same time, ensuring that plaintiffs with meritorious claims will have their day in court. With regard to theFallon AOM’s alleged failure to mention that any medical records were reviewed, the Court concluded that because N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 does not refer to the review of medical records, affiants are not required to state that they reviewed the medical records of the injured party.
As for the Fallon AOM’s failure to name a specific named defendant whose actions fell below the applicable standard of care, the Court also found the claim baseless. In support, it noted that the AOM statute “is silent as to any requirement that the affidavit specifically identify a defendant by name.” In this case, the plaintiff’s AOM specifically names Dr. Singh as “one of the John and Jane Doe [d]efendants sued therein.” Furthermore, Dr. Singh was not required to be named individually in the complaint because he was an agent of JSUMC and was one of the John and Jane Does referred to in the complaint.
Finally, the New Jersey Supreme Court emphasized the need for a timely and effective Ferreira conference in all professional negligence actions. It also noted that failing to hold such a conference in this case gave rise to issues that could have been resolved.
“Because we find the Fallon AOM is compliant with N.J.S.A. 2A:53A- 27’s requirements, we need not reach the equitable remedies of substantial compliance or extraordinary circumstances. If we were to reach the question of extraordinary circumstances, however, the trial court’s failure to hold a Ferreira conference would weigh heavily in favor of such a finding,” Justice Solomon explained. “We emphasize once again the conference’s importance in professional negligence actions.”