Hackensack Radiology Grp. v. Sensoz
| Docket Number | A-1524-22 |
| Decision Date | 25 January 2024 |
| Parties | HACKENSACK RADIOLOGY GROUP, PA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GOKSIN SENSOZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — 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.
Submitted January 8, 2024
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Bergen County, Docket No. DC-008886-22.
Guvenc Acarkan, attorney for appellant.
Michael S. Harrison, attorney for respondent (Stacy B. Fronapfel, on the brief).
Before Judges Sabatino and Marczyk.
Defendant Goksin Sensoz appeals from the trial court's December 16 2022 orders granting plaintiff Hackensack Radiology Group's ("Hackensack") motion for summary judgment as to its affirmative claims and its motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaim. Following our review of the record and the applicable legal principles, we affirm.
On November 16, 2021, defendant underwent a CT scan of her abdomen and pelvis at Hackensack.[1] After defendant failed to pay for the services, Hackensack filed a complaint in August 2022 seeking to recover $518.16.[2]Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim in November 2022.[3] Defendant's answer stated in relevant part, "[d] espite the explanation of the defective services and that no debt is owed to [p]laintiff, they have persisted to file a lawsuit against[d] efendant." Defendant's counterclaim alleged that Hackensack "rendered defective radiology services" regarding a report showing "material mistakes as to whether medical issues to . . . [d]efendant are in her left or right kidney and whether they are in her left or right pelvis." Defendant also characterized the CT scan and MRI reports as "defective and inconclusive."
Thereafter, plaintiff moved to dismiss defendant's counterclaim. Plaintiff further moved for summary judgment requesting the court enter a judgment against defendant in the amount of $518.16. Defendant filed opposition to both motions. Therein, defendant did not dispute receiving the medical services at issue. Rather, defendant attached her certification to the opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion stating,
On December 16, 2022, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaim. The court found that
In the court's amplification letter,[5] it clarified its decision to grant the motion stating that Therefore, the court noted it "granted plaintiff's motion seeking dismissal of the counterclaim, which asserted medical malpractice in the form of defective radiology services."
On the same date, the court also granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. In granting summary judgment, the court noted on the order, "[t]here is no certification of defendant upon personal knowledge per [Rule] 1:6-6 wherein defendant denies receiving the medical service or responsibility for the outstanding invoice." In the court's amplification letter, it further explained its reasoning as follows:
On December 19, 2022, the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $600.16. This appeal followed.
Defendant primarily contends, pursuant to Rule 4:46-2, that there are material facts in dispute and summary judgment should not have been granted. Defendant argues her certification, which asserts there were errors in the radiology reports, required a denial of the summary judgment motion. Defendant further maintains her counterclaim consisted of a contractual dispute, not a medical malpractice action, and therefore, the court erroneously dismissed defendant's counterclaim. More particularly, defendant argues the Hackensack radiology reports confused findings on her left and right sides and that the reports conflicted with each other, and therefore, Hackensack rendered inadequate services.
We review a grant of summary judgment by applying the same legal standard as the motion judge. Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 59 (2015). We must determine whether there is a "genuine issue as to any material fact" when the evidence is "viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party . . . ." Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 405-06 (2014) (). The "trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference" and are reviewed de novo. Est. of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. &Cas. Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369, 382-83 (2010).
We also review de novo "the trial court's determination of [a] motion to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e)." Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman &Stahl, P.C., 237 N.J. 91, 108 (2019). Thus, we accord "no deference to the . . . judge's conclusions." Mac Prop. Grp. LLC &The Cake Boutique LLC v. Selective Fire &Cas. Ins. Co., 473 N.J.Super. 1, 16 (App. Div. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting State ex rel. Comm'r of Transp. v. Cherry Hill Mitsubishi, Inc., 439 N.J.Super. 462, 467(App. Div. 2015)).
The premise of defendant's opposition to both the motion for summary judgment and the motion to dismiss is based on the same theory. She asserts Hackensack's radiology reports had "material mistakes as to whether medical issues . . . [were on] her left or right kidney [or] whether they [were] in her left or right pelvis." In short, she claims the reports were inconsistent and the services rendered were "defective and inconclusive."
We initially observe defendant has provided no expert testimony to explain how the reports were purportedly defective. The radiology reports provided to the court as exhibits were marked by defendant to show the purported inconsistencies. For example, defendant highlights a portion of the November 16, 2021 CT scan report reading the To demonstrate an apparent contradiction, defendant also underlines a portion of the November 26, 2021 MRI report which reads,
The November 16, 2021 study was a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast. The November 26, 2021 study was an MRI of the abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast. The reports were prepared by different radiologists. Contrary to defendant's allegations, the studies, on their face, are not necessarily inconsistent. For example, conspicuously absent from defendant's certification in opposition to the motions is reference to any other aspects of the respective reports. The November 16, 2021 CT scan notes defendant has a hypodensity in the right lower pelvis that could represent "the right ovary with a prominent physiologic follicle or [h]emorrhagic cyst." This specific finding-on the same side-is also referenced in the November 26, 2021 MRI of the pelvis. Specifically, the report, when addressing the pelvic organs, notes a "right ovarian cyst corresponding to the . . . lesion seen on [the] prior CT and appears to measure smaller compared to the prior exam ...."
The second study in this respect is not inconsistent and references the cysts in the same location. The MRI study mentions an entirely separate finding-a left renal cyst. This finding, however, does not render one, or both reports, defective. It simply identifies a potential issue with a different anatomical structure. To be sure, we have no way to know on this record whether the radiologists' interpretations of the November 16, 2021 CT scan or November 26, 2021 MRI were accurate. That is precisely why expert testimony is needed in a case such as this. It could be the films were properly read, or it is possible they were incorrectly interpreted. Without expert testimony, defendant cannot establish that the studies were incorrectly read. The subject matter is beyond the ken of an average juror. Jacobs v. Jersey Cent. Power &Light Co., 452 N.J.Super. 494, 505 (App. Div. 2017). Because defendant failed to produce expert testimony to challenge the accuracy of the radiology reports, the trial court correctly granted the summary judgment motion and the motion to dismiss.
Defendant's certification in support of her opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment reads, Putting aside the fact that defendant does not identify the specific lesion she is...
To continue reading
Request your trial