Calabrese v. Trenton State College
| Decision Date | 01 April 1980 |
| Citation | 413 A.2d 315,82 N.J. 321 |
| Parties | Carmine CALABRESE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TRENTON STATE COLLEGE, Defendant-Appellant. Carmine CALABRESE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dr. William EAMES, Dr. Alexander Farina, and Trenton State College, Defendants-Appellants. Carmine CALABRESE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dr. William EAMES, Dr. Alexander Farina, and Trenton State College, Defendants-Appellants, and Eli Lilly & Company, Ketchum Distributors and Robbins Pharmacy, jointly and severally, Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Maurice J. Gallipoli, Jersey City, for defendant-appellant Dr. William Eames (Lamb, Hutchinson, Chappell, Ryan & Hartung, Jersey City, attorneys; Mary B. Rogers, Jersey City, on brief).
Douglas R. Kleinfeld, Newark, for defendant-appellant Dr. Alexander Farina (Conway, Reiseman, Bumgardner, Hurley & Kleinfeld, Newark, attorneys).
Lawrence G. Moncher, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellant Trenton State College (John J. Degnan, Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, attorney).
Irving I. Vogelman, Jersey City, for plaintiff-respondent (Krivitzky & Springer, Jersey City, attorneys; Howard Springer, Jersey City, on brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This appeal in a medical malpractice case is by virtue of a dissent in the Appellate Division. R. 2:2-1(a)(2).
Plaintiff Carmine Calabrese, while a student at Trenton State College, was bitten on the leg by a stray dog. He received emergency treatment at a local hospital where he was given a tetanus shot. When the dog could not be found to be tested for rabies, plaintiff received a series of fourteen anti-rabies injections recommended by defendant Dr. William Eames, the attending physician at the college infirmary. Dr. Eames administered ten of the injections and gave the remaining vaccine to plaintiff and told him to have his family doctor complete the series. Accordingly, plaintiff went to defendant Dr. Alexander Farina who gave him the last four injections. Plaintiff alleges that neither doctor warned him of any possible side effects from the vaccine.
After receiving the injections plaintiff began to develop neurological problems. He had trouble concentrating, thinking clearly, reading, retaining information and was unable to complete college. He alleges that he cannot hold down a job and that he has been declared to be totally disabled for federal social security purposes.
On July 8, 1974 plaintiff filed suit against the two physicians and the college alleging that his present physical and mental condition was caused by the anti-rabies injections. He charged that administration of the vaccine involved known medical risks and that the failure of the doctors to give him any warning as to possible adverse side effects constituted malpractice. 1
An extended period of discovery was granted. Although ordered to furnish defendants with the names of experts he intended to use at trial and with copies of their reports, plaintiff did not comply to any substantial degree. Finally, by order dated November 3, 1976, the trial judge denied plaintiff's motion for a further extension of time and barred plaintiff from introducing expert testimony by any person whose name and report had not been supplied to defendants by October 22, 1976.
Thereafter, defendants moved for and were granted summary judgment, the trial court ruling that expert testimony was essential to establish that a failure to warn plaintiff of possible adverse side effects constituted a departure from recognized medical standards for disclosure. The court stated that it could not "find anything in the medical or other expert witnesses reports that have been compiled on behalf of the plaintiff to indicate that any one or another of those experts would testify that the defendant doctors did not meet the standard."
On appeal, the Appellate Division upheld the order barring plaintiff's use of expert witnesses. However, it also concluded that in an informed consent situation such as this, where it is alleged that the doctors failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abtrax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Elkins-Sinn, Inc.
...in the circumstances." Calabrese v. Trenton State College, 162 N.J.Super. 145, 151-52, 392 A.2d 600 (App.Div.1978), aff'd, 82 N.J. 321, 413 A.2d 315 (1980); see also Lang, supra, 6 N.J. at 339, 78 A.2d 705 (same); cf. Allegro v. Afton Village Corp., 9 N.J. 156, 161, 87 A.2d 430 (1952) ("It ......
-
Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 2002-SC-0746-CL.
...827, 842 (2000); New Jersey: Calabrese v. Trenton State Coll., 162 N.J.Super. 145, 392 A.2d 600, 604-05 (App.Div.1978), aff'd, 82 N.J. 321, 413 A.2d 315 (1980); New Mexico: Perfetti v. McGhan Med., 99 N.M. 645, 662 P.2d 646, 649 New York: Martin v. Hacker, 83 N.Y.2d 1, 607 N.Y.S.2d 598, 628......
-
State v. Kelly
...research about the battered woman's syndrome. See Buckelew v. Grossbard, 87 N.J. 512, 435 A.2d 1150 (1981); Calabrese v. Trenton State College, 82 N.J. 321, 413 A.2d 315 (1980). The abundance of this authoritative literature was also made evident on this appeal--over 70 scientific articles ......
-
Certified Questions From U.S. Dist. Court For Eastern Dist. of Mich., Southern Div., In re, Docket Nos. 68958
...648 P.2d 21, 24-25 (Okla., 1982); Calabrese v. Trenton State College, 162 N.J.Super. 145, 153-154, 392 A.2d 600 (1978), aff'd 82 N.J. 321, 413 A.2d 315 (1980).5 Some courts have made an exception for drugs administered in a mass immunization setting. See, e.g., Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories, ......