Higgins v. Pascack Valley Hosp.

CourtSuperior Court of New Jersey
Writing for the CourtCONLEY
Citation307 N.J.Super. 277,704 A.2d 988
Decision Date14 January 1998
Parties, 13 IER Cases 1145 Josephine C. HIGGINS and Joseph A. Higgins, Jr., Plaintiffs-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, v. PASCACK VALLEY HOSPITAL, Dorothy Voorman-Fish, Gary Del Moro, Myron Horowitz, Louis Ycre, and Daniel DeSantis, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Respondents.

Page 277

307 N.J.Super. 277
704 A.2d 988, 13 IER Cases 1145
Josephine C. HIGGINS and Joseph A. Higgins, Jr.,
Plaintiffs-Respondents/Cross-Appellants,
v.
PASCACK VALLEY HOSPITAL, Dorothy Voorman-Fish, Gary Del
Moro, Myron Horowitz, Louis Ycre, and Daniel
DeSantis, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Respondents.
Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division.
Argued Dec. 16, 1997.
Decided Jan. 14, 1998.

[704 A.2d 990]

Page 280

John H. Schmidt, Jr., Westfield, for defendants-appellants/cross-respondents (Lindabury, McCormick & Estabrook, attorneys; Mr. Schmidt, and Athena Lekas, on the brief).

Andrew Dwyer, Newark, for plaintiffs-respondents/cross-appellants (Reinhardt & Schachter, attorneys; Paul Schachter, of counsel and on the brief; Mr. Dwyer, on the brief).

Before Judges CONLEY, WALLACE and CARCHMAN.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

CONLEY, J.A.D.

Plaintiff, Josephine Higgins, was a part-time nurse for Pascack Valley Hospital's mobile emergency-care squad. In 1991 and 1992 she complained to her supervisors on two occasions about what she believed to be misconduct by a co-employee. The supervisors

Page 281

investigated both complaints and concluded that the co-employee had not engaged in the alleged misconduct. As a result of her complaints, however, other co-employees became hostile towards plaintiff and expressed to their supervisors the desire not to be assigned to work with her. In her subsequent civil action, plaintiff contended that as a result, her work hours were reduced and her request for transfer to the full-time position of a mobile intensive care nurse was denied in retaliation for her complaints and, thus, in violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8. She also claimed that defendants defamed her. Defendants appeal a jury verdict returned in favor of plaintiff on both claims, awarding her compensatory and punitive damages of $640,000 (reduced to $619,000 on remittitur), plus $200,816.77 counsel fees, $11,884.85 in costs, and $26,082 prejudgment interest. Plaintiff cross-appeals from the remittitur, the calculation of counsel fees, and the dismissal of her complaint against the individual defendants as to their personal liability.

On defendants' appeal, we reverse the verdict as to defamation, agreeing with defendants that a cause of action on that theory was not, as a matter of law, established by [704 A.2d 991] plaintiff. Because we believe the jury charge as to the CEPA claim was erroneous, we reverse the verdict as to that claim and remand for a new trial thereon. We do so not only as to liability but damages as well because we think the award of compensatory and punitive damages can not be separated from the liability issues.

As to the issues on cross-appeal, our reversal of the CEPA and defamation liability verdicts renders the remittitur and counsel fee issues moot. We are convinced the trial judge, for the reasons she expressed, properly dismissed the complaint as to the individual defendants and that, further, the issues on appeal as to that dismissal are without merit and require no further opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), (E).

I

In 1985, plaintiff began working for the hospital as a part-time nurse in its Mobile Intensive Care Unit (MICU). The unit

Page 282

responds to accident scenes with a nurse and a paramedic, who provide emergency treatment to injured victims and ride in the ambulance with the victims until arrival at the hospital. Plaintiff's employment status was known as "per diem-unscheduled." During her years with the hospital, plaintiff also worked part-time elsewhere as a nurse or nursing instructor. Her complaint originates from two separate incidents involving two separate calls. The parties have referred to the first incident as "the paperwork incident" and the second as the "pill-theft incident."

A.

The paperwork incident

After completing an MICU call, the nurse and paramedic are required to fill out either a white or a blue sheet. A white sheet is used when the MICU arrived at the scene and provided some assessment or treatment. A blue sheet is used if the MICU call was canceled by the police or ambulance staff before the MICU arrived.

Plaintiff testified that in the fall of 1991 two MICU nurses had been suspended for filing a blue sheet for an incident in which they had actually seen the victim; they should have filled out a white sheet instead. Shortly thereafter the MICU coordinator held a meeting at which he reminded the staff of the importance of the necessity for proper paperwork.

About two months later, on November 18, 1991, plaintiff was serving as a volunteer for Triboro Volunteer Ambulance Corps when an ambulance was dispatched to the home of two firemen, father and son, who had been injured during a drill. Plaintiff knew the son, Kenny Steele, whom she began treating for smoke inhalation. Also reporting to the scene was an MICU vehicle manned by two paramedics, Bruce Contini and Peter Fromm. Plaintiff saw them evaluating Kenny. Plaintiff's ambulance then transported Steele to the hospital.

Page 283

The next time plaintiff reported for MICU duty, about a week later, she checked the MICU log to find out what had happened to Steele. The log indicated that the MICU call had been canceled before Contini and Fromm ever got to the scene. As a result, plaintiff formed the opinion that the paperwork she found was incomplete, and that the paramedics had failed to complete the appropriate forms.

At trial Fromm gave his version of the incident. He and Contini were dispatched to attend to a patient with a respiratory emergency. While they were en route to the scene, they received a second dispatch that there was a second patient needing attention at the same location. Upon their arrival either some police officers or the ambulance staff told them that the second patient did not need their assistance; hence, they treated Kenny Steele, who was suffering from smoke inhalation. Plaintiff had already arrived with the ambulance and was with Steele. Fromm and plaintiff agreed that Steele did not need the advanced life support offered by the MICU, and so they left Steele with the ambulance squad.

On the way back to the hospital, Contini filled out a blue sheet with regard to the second patient, Kenny Steele's father, whom they had not attended to. Contini wrote "Resp" (respiratory) in the space for the purpose of the dispatch, because that had [704 A.2d 992] been the subject of the initial dispatch. In the section labeled "CANCELED PRIOR TO ARRIVAL," Contini first wrote in "BLS" (basic life support, a reference to the ambulance squad), but then crossed it out and wrote "error" when he realized that he should have filled out the next section, for calls canceled "UPON ARRIVAL." Fromm reviewed the blue sheet, signed it, and gave it back to Contini.

According to Fromm he filled out a white sheet for the incident, describing his and Contini's treatment of Kenny Steele for smoke inhalation. In the top right-hand corner, in the space for "Report # ," Fromm wrote "91-" but left the rest of the number blank because he was in the emergency room and the log book with the

Page 284

incident numbers was in the office. Instead of putting the form in the coordinator's box for his signature, Fromm said he inadvertently left it in the emergency room where they had taken Steele.

In his deposition (read into evidence because Contini had moved to Colorado before trial), Contini substantially corroborated Fromm's account of how he and Fromm had been "called off" the second patient and examined Kenny Steele only. Contini filled out a blue sheet on the second patient, at first filling in the wrong section but finally indicating that the second call had been canceled on arrival by the ambulance team. He said that he had told plaintiff that the form had been properly completed. Plaintiff, however, testified that Contini told her the white sheet had been made up after she reported the incident.

Plaintiff reported the suspected impropriety to her supervisor, defendant Gary Del Moro, Coordinator and Assistant Director of the MICU. He told her that he would investigate and get back to her. Del Moro testified at trial that upon receiving plaintiff's complaint, he called Fromm, told him of her complaint and asked him if he had completed the proper forms. Fromm told him he had. Del Moro also advised Dorothy Voorman-Fish, the President of Nursing Services, of the potential infraction. The next morning Del Moro investigated the complaint. As he began his investigation, he located only the blue sheet. He then telephoned the dispatching agency, and confirmed that the dispatch was for two people, one who had respiratory problems and one who fell. Since Del Moro could not locate the white sheet in the MICU office or the emergency room, he went to the medical records department at the hospital to look through the patient charts. Inside of the patient's medical record was the white sheet. Although the dispatch report number was missing, the white sheet was otherwise complete. The missing dispatch number was later filled in by Nancy Del Moro, a full-time MICU nurse (and Gary Del Moro's wife), on November 8, 1992, nearly a year later. 1

Page 285

Del Moro made a written report of the accusation and what his investigation revealed to Voorman-Fish. Thereafter, Voorman-Fish reviewed six months of MICU incident reports to make certain the hospital policies were being followed. Plaintiff was made aware of Del Moro's findings and claimed to have been chastised for making the report. Plaintiff was not disciplined for making the accusations against Fromm and Contini, but Del Moro wrote in his December 7, 1991 report to Voorman-Fish:

Josephine's actions have markedly polarized this MICU. Several staff have refused to work with her, [o]thers have elected to confront her. My clinical evaluation of Josephine is that of an employee that meets...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Taj Mahal Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 97-5652
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 30, 1998
    ...another person to a 'loss of the good will and confidence' in which he or she is held by others." Higgins v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 307 N.J.Super. 277, 704 A.2d 988, 1002 (1998). If the statement is not capable of a defamatory meaning, the trial court should dismiss the action as a matter of......
  • Piscataway Tp. Educ. Ass'n v. Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • January 14, 1998
    ...on sick leave to submit doctors' notes verifying their illness, and also that the impact issue of who pays for health examinations[704 A.2d 988] was severable and mandatorily It is clear that the finding of a connection between a managerial prerogative and an issue sought to be negotiated d......
  • Demas v. National Westminster Bank
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • June 24, 1998
    ...that plaintiff has not established a prima facie case under CEPA. In the first instance, just as in Higgins v. Pascack Valley Hospital, 307 N.J.Super. 277, 704 A.2d 988 (App.Div.1998), the conduct upon which plaintiff alleges she blew the whistle was not conduct attributable to her employer......
  • Higgins v. Pascack Valley Hospital, C-1063
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • September 11, 1998
    ...Valley Hospital NOS. C-1063 SEPTTERM 1997, 45,443 Supreme Court of New Jersey September 11, 1998 Lower Court Citation or Number: 307 N.J.Super. 277, 704 A.2d 988 Disposition: Granted. ...
4 cases
  • Taj Mahal Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 97-5652
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 30, 1998
    ...another person to a 'loss of the good will and confidence' in which he or she is held by others." Higgins v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 307 N.J.Super. 277, 704 A.2d 988, 1002 (1998). If the statement is not capable of a defamatory meaning, the trial court should dismiss the action as a matter of......
  • Piscataway Tp. Educ. Ass'n v. Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • January 14, 1998
    ...on sick leave to submit doctors' notes verifying their illness, and also that the impact issue of who pays for health examinations[704 A.2d 988] was severable and mandatorily It is clear that the finding of a connection between a managerial prerogative and an issue sought to be negotiated d......
  • Demas v. National Westminster Bank
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • June 24, 1998
    ...that plaintiff has not established a prima facie case under CEPA. In the first instance, just as in Higgins v. Pascack Valley Hospital, 307 N.J.Super. 277, 704 A.2d 988 (App.Div.1998), the conduct upon which plaintiff alleges she blew the whistle was not conduct attributable to her employer......
  • Higgins v. Pascack Valley Hospital, C-1063
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • September 11, 1998
    ...Valley Hospital NOS. C-1063 SEPTTERM 1997, 45,443 Supreme Court of New Jersey September 11, 1998 Lower Court Citation or Number: 307 N.J.Super. 277, 704 A.2d 988 Disposition: Granted. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT