M.R. v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corr.

• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: JUSTICE HOFFMAN
• Citation: M.R. v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corr., 261 N.J. 322, 339 A.3d 230 (N.J. 2025)
• Docket Number: 089371
• Decision Date: 28 July 2025
• Parties: M.R., Appellant-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Respondent.
• topic: Administrative Law,Criminal Law,Civil Procedure

339 A.3d 230

261 N.J. 322

M.R., Appellant-Appellant,

v.NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Respondent.

A-53 September Term 2023 089371

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued November 18, 2024

Decided July 28, 2025

On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 478 N.J. Super. 377, 314 A.3d 503 (App. Div. 2024).

Colin Sheehan, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney; Colin Sheehan, of counsel and on the briefs).

Brett J. Haroldson, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Donna Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, and Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs).

Joshua P. Law argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys; Joshua P. Law, of counsel and on the brief).

JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

₃₂₉In this case, we review the Compassionate Release Act (CRA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51e, and its implementing regulation, N.J.A.C. 10A:16-8.6, to determine whether physicians retained by the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) are required to conduct a physical examination to render an acceptable medical diagnosis for inmates applying for compassionate release. Additionally, we examine whether it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable for the DOC to deny appellant M.R. a Certificate of Eligibility in August 2023.

₃₃₀[1] Under the CRA, inmates diagnosed with a terminal condition or permanent physical incapacity are permitted to petition the Superior Court for compassionate release. The CRA does not, however, indicate the method or process necessary for rendering that diagnosis. Based on the statute’s plain language, as well as the legislative history and fundamental purpose of compassionate release, we agree with the Appellate Division that physical examinations are not statutorily mandated to render a medical diagnosis that complies with the statute.

[2] We conclude, however, that the DOC’s decision to deny M.R. a Certificate of Eligibility in August 2023 was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. Every applicant seeking compassionate release must be examined for both a terminal condition and a permanent physical incapacity. In this instance, the medical records relied upon by the DOC’s attesting physicians, as well as their corresponding explanations, were insufficient to support the agency’s conclusion that M.R. did not suffer from such a physical incapacity. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division. Had we been afforded the opportunity to review this decision prior to subsequent developments in the case - namely, M.R.’s passing - we would have remanded the matter back to the DOC and directed it to conduct a more comprehensive and contemporaneous evaluation.

I.

The underlying facts of this appeal are not in dispute. In 2015, M.R.¹ pled guilty to a first-degree racketeering charge and was sentenced to sixteen years in prison, subject to an eighty-five-percent parole ineligibility period under the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

₃₃₁On August 20, 2020, while M.R. was serving his sentence at Northern State Prison in Newark, neurologist Dr. Javier Taboada conducted an in-person physical examination of M.R., who was having trouble maintaining balance and writing legibly. After a follow-up telemedicine consultation on September 10, 2020, Dr. Taboada noted that M.R. suffered from “progressive neurological deficits with ataxic gait,²speech dysarthria,³ and loss of dexterity on his hands predominantly on the right” and that recent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed an “abnormality” in M.R.’s brain. The following day, M.R. was admitted to St. Francis Medical Center for a neurological evaluation, and he was subsequently diagnosed with medulloblastoma, a malignant form of brain cancer. On January 14, 2021, M.R. underwent surgery to remove the malignant tumor. In September 2022, follow-up MRI scans showed that there was “[n]o evidence of any mass lesion” in M.R.’s brain and “[n]o evidence of any metastasis” to his spine.

On November 16, 2022, M.R. visited Dr. Geetha Hrishikesan for a chronic care consultation. The physician noted that M.R. was wheelchair-bound and suffered from “residual neurologic deficits.” The report also noted that M.R. recently requested physical therapy “to help with ambulation and toileting” and that an additional MRI was scheduled for December 2022.⁴

A.

On or about February 9, 2023, M.R. applied for compassionate release. To determine whether M.R. was eligible under the CRA, the DOC designated Drs. Jeffrey Pomerantz and Ruppert Hawes 332 to provide attestation reports regarding M.R.’s medical diagnosis. Neither physician conducted an in-person physical examination of M.R., but instead relied on M.R.’s electronic medical record to formulate their respective diagnoses.

Dr. Pomerantz provided his report on February 9, 2023. He determined that M.R. was not physically incapacitated but concluded that M.R. did suffer from a terminal condition.⁵ Under “Explain,” Dr. Pomerantz stated: “neurologist documents ‘progressive neurological deficits with ataxic gait, speech dysarthria, and loss of dexterity on his hands predominantly on the right.’ ” Notably, the quoted neurologist, Dr. Taboada, had documented these symptoms in a consultation report compiled on August 20, 2020 - more than twenty-nine months earlier.

Dr. Hawes provided his report the following week. Dr. Hawes also determined that M.R. did not suffer from a permanent physical incapacity, but, in contrast to Dr. Pomerantz’s prognosis, Dr. Hawes concluded that M.R.’s condition was not terminal. Under “Continuing Care Needs,” Dr. Hawes noted that M.R. suffered from “residual neurologic defecits [sic] (dysarthria, cranial 7 palsy, lack of coordination).” This language was taken verbatim from Dr. Hrishikesan’s November 2022 consultation.

Dr. Herbert Kaldany, acting on behalf of the DOC’s health services medical director, reviewed the physicians’ attestation reports and concluded that M.R. was not eligible for compassionate release. In a one-page memorandum submitted to the DOC Commissioner on February 22, 2023, Dr. Kaldany erroneously noted that both physicians’ attestation reports “state that [M.R.] does not have … a prognosis of less than six (6) months nor does he require 24-hour assistance with activities of daily living ₃₃₃CADLs),” despite Dr. Pomerantz having concluded otherwise. The memorandum did not provide evidentiary support, such as recent MRI results or entries from M.R.’s medical record, but rather pointed solely to the attesting physicians’ reports.

On February 27, 2023, Lisa Palmiere, Director of Classification of the DOC’s Division of Operations, issued the DOC’s final administrative decision, informing M.R. that he was ineligible for compassionate release. Palmiere stated that the physicians’ diagnoses did not indicate that M.R. suffered from a terminal condition or a permanent physical incapacity.

B.

On May 19, 2023, M.R. filed an appeal of the DOC’s decision pursuant to Rule 2:2-3(a)(2). On August 14, 2023, the Appellate Division remanded the matter to allow the DOC to reevaluate M.R.’s eligibility in light of Dr. Pomerantz’s and Dr. Hawes’s conflicting terminality prognoses. The DOC stated that should the physicians’ conclusions remain in conflict, it would seek the opinion of a third doctor. The Appellate Division instructed that the new reports be completed within thirty days.

On August 22, 2023, Drs. Pomerantz and Hawes provided updated reports, now uniformly concluding that M.R. did not suffer from a terminal condition or permanent physical incapacity.⁶ Once again, both physicians relied solely on M.R.’s electronic medical record.

Under “diagnosis,” Dr. Hawes stated that M.R. “has moderate-severe dysarthria and suspected voice impairment, as evidenced by imprecise articulation, decreased secretion management, irregular slow rate of speech,₃₃₄ and strained and breathy vocal quality.” This language first appeared in a speech language pathology report compiled four months prior. Dr. Pomerantz provided the same language, stating that M.R. “has moderate to severe dysarthria & voice impa[i]rment.”

Under “Continuing Care Needs,” Dr. Hawes once again copied Dr. Hrishikesan’s November 2022 report - now nine months old - stating that M.R. suffered from “residual neurologic deficits (dysarthria, cranial 7 palsy, lack of coordination).”

Both physicians concluded that M.R. did not suffer from a terminal condition. In support, the physicians pointed to MRI scans conducted on July 17, 2023, which showed “no evidence of recurrence” of M.R.’s brain cancer. The physicians also concluded that M.R. did not suffer from a permanent physical incapacity, stating without further explanation, “No - does not require 24-hour care.”

Based upon the updated attestations, Dr. Kaldany again concluded that “there is no evidence that [M.R.] is suffering from a terminal condition … or permanent physical incapacity.” He notified the DOC on August 23, 2023, that M.R. was ineligible for compassionate release. Dr. Kaldany explained that M.R.’s July 2023 MRI scans showed “no evidence of recurrence,” but noted that ongoing specialty care was necessary due to “the residual neurologic deficits of [M.R.’s] diagnosis” - invoking Dr. Hrishikesan’s November 2022 report.

On August 24, 2023, the DOC denied M.R. a Certificate of Eligibility for the second time, noting that there was “no indication” that he was eligible for compassionate release. M.R. filed an amended notice of appeal the following month.

C.

On April 19, 2024, the Appellate Division affirmed the DOC’s decision to deny M.R. a Certificate of Eligibility. M.R. v, Dep’t of Corr., 478 N.J. Super. 377, 380, 314 A.3d 503 (App. Div. 2024). The ₃₃₅court concluded...