Mayfield v. COMMUNITY MED. ASSOC., PA,
Decision Date | 28 November 2000 |
Citation | 335 N.J. Super. 198,762 A.2d 237 |
Parties | Billy Dean MAYFIELD and Karen Mayfield, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. COMMUNITY MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, P.A., Joseph W. Schauer, III, M.D., Joseph W. Schauer, Jr., M.D., Ina J. Kelemer, M.D., Keith J. Keefer, M.D., Deepak Taneja, M.D., and Neil Agrawal, M.D., Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Lauren H. Walter argued the cause for appellants (Ronan, Tuzzio & Giannone, Tinton Falls, attorneys; Ms. Walter, of counsel and on the brief).
John F. McLaughlin argued the cause for respondents (Auerbach, Ryan, McLaughlin & Genz, attorneys; Philip G. Auerbach, Red Bank, of counsel; Mr. McLaughlin, on the brief).
Before Judges PRESSLER, KESTIN, and ALLEY. The opinion of the court was delivered by ALLEY, J.A.D
This appeal presents another opportunity for interpretation and application of the affidavit of merit statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27. It arises in the context of a medical malpractice action and involves both an affidavit of merit timely filed but not
served, and an expert's report timely served but not sworn.
Plaintiffs' complaint was filed on April 14, 1999. It alleges that Billy Dean Mayfield was a patient of defendant Community Medical Associates and of various doctors in that practice, that they engaged in medical malpractice by failing to assist him in timely renewing a prescription for a particular anti-coagulant medication, and that, as a result, he suffered severe medical problems, hospitalization, and substantial economic loss. His wife asserts a per quod claim.
On April 28, 1999, plaintiffs' counsel filed with the court an affidavit of merit signed by Salvatore Bernardo, Jr., M.D. Solely through inadvertence of counsel, the affidavit was not served on defense counsel until almost one year later, on April 6, 2000. The document, specifically designated as an "affidavit of merit," appears to have been duly sworn to and subscribed by Dr. Bernardo before a notary public of New Jersey on February 26, 1999, and reads in material part as follows:
The answer of all defendants was filed July 28, 1999. Plaintiffs' counsel provided an expert's report to defense counsel on September 24, 1999. The report, dated September 7, 1999, is unsworn and uncertified, but appears to be signed by Henry D. Berkowitz, M.D., and is addressed to plaintiff's counsel. It states:
Defendants filed a motion on April 5, 2000, seeking an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to produce an affidavit of merit. The next day, plaintiffs' counsel, having learned that the filed affidavit of merit had not been served, then sent it on to defense counsel. The motion court ruled that plaintiffs had substantially complied with the statute and denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants now appeal that interlocutory order pursuant to leave granted. We affirm.
We start with the language of the pertinent section of the affidavit of merit statute itself, which provides:
Substantial rights are put in issue by a motion that asserts a failure to comply with this provision, because under another section of the statute, "[i]f the plaintiff fails to provide an affidavit or a statement in lieu thereof, it shall be deemed a failure to state a cause of action." N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-29. The motion court invoked the doctrine of substantial compliance in denying the motion to dismiss, relying on Alan J. Cornblatt, P.A. v. Barow, 153 N.J. 218, 708 A.2d 401 (1998), where the Supreme Court stated:
[153 N.J. at 239,708 A.2d 401]
The attorney in Cornblatt had provided to the defense, not an affidavit of merit, but a certification conforming to R. 1:4-4(b), which provides that "[i]n lieu of the affidavit required by these rules, the affiant may submit the following certification...." The Supreme Court held that the statute "is the exclusive authority governing the document to be filed ..." but that "... it does not follow that the Legislature intended that under no circumstances could the filing of a certification satisfy the statutory requirement or, stated differently, that the filing of a certificate instead of an affidavit would always constitute a fatal failure of compliance mandating the dismissal of the action." [Ibid., 153 N.J. at 238, 239, 708 A.2d 401]
In determining that the certification provided in Cornblatt substantially complied with the statute, the Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Endl v. State
...in order to doom innocent litigants possessing meritorious claims.” Id. at 783 (quoting Mayfield v. Community Med. Assocs., P.A., 335 N.J.Super. 198, 762 A.2d 237, 244 (2000)). I construe it in that spirit. The Affidavit of Merit requirement does not dictate dismissal here. The time limits ......
-
Nuveen Mun. Trust ex rel. Nuveen High Yield Municipal Bond Fund v. Withumsmith Brown, P.C.
...not prejudicial because it was “simply too early in the litigation for that claim to be credible”); Mayfield v. Cmty. Med. Assocs., P.A., 335 N.J.Super. 198, 762 A.2d 237, 243 (App.Div.2000) (stating that, where the affidavit was timely filed but served late, “there has been no showing of p......
-
Lloyd's v. Walnut Advisory Corp.
...of Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 151 N.J.Super. 71, 76-77, 376 A.2d 563 (App.Div.1977)). See also Mayfield v. Comm'y Med. Assoc., 335 N.J.Super. 198, 203, 762 A.2d 237 (App.Div.2000). Although New Jersey courts take seriously the plaintiff's obligation to produce an AOM they “do not sla......
-
Haviland v. Lourdes Med. Ctr. of Burlington Cnty., Inc.
...litigants possessing meritorious claims." Ferreira, 178 N.J. at 151, 836 A.2d 779 (quoting Mayfield v. Cmty. Med. Assocs., P.A., 335 N.J. Super. 198, 209, 762 A.2d 237 (App. Div. 2000) ). We therefore fashioned two equitable remedies to "temper the draconian results of an inflexible applica......