Vizzoni v. B.M.D.
Decision Date | 24 June 2019 |
Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-1255-18T3 |
Citation | Vizzoni v. B.M.D., 459 N.J.Super. 554, 212 A.3d 962 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2019) |
Parties | Tracey L. VIZZONI, as Executrix for the Estate of Judith A. Schrope, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B.M.D., J.D., and Atlock Farm, Defendants, and Stefan Lerner, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Justin Lee Klein, Eatontown, argued the cause for appellant(Hobbie, Corrigan & DeCarlo, PC, attorneys; Jacqueline DeCarlo, of counsel; Justin Lee Klein, Eatontown, on the briefs).
Sam Rosenberg, Morris Plains, argued the cause for respondent(Rosenberg Jacobs Heller & Fleming, PC, attorneys; Sam Rosenberg, of counsel; Matthew E. Blackman, Hackensack, on the brief).
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, attorneys for amici curiaeAmerican Medical Association and Medical Society of New Jersey (Philip S. Goldberg, on the brief).
Before Judges Simonelli, Whipple and Firko.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
WHIPPLE, J.A.D.
PlaintiffTracey L. Vizzoni, as executrix for the estate of Judith A. Schrope, appeals from a May 11, 2018Law Division order granting summary judgment and dismissing her negligence claims against defendantStefan Lerner, M.D.1 Tragically, Lerner's patient, B.M.D.,2 struck and killed Judith Schrope while driving.Plaintiff argues Lerner's negligent prescription of medication to B.M.D. was the proximate cause of the fatal crash.For the reasons that follow, we affirm the order of the trial court.
We discern the following facts from the record and view them in the light most favorable to plaintiff.SeeBrill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540, 666 A.2d 146(1995).On June 17, 2014, at around 9:45 in the morning, B.M.D., driving her SUV, struck decedent Schrope as Schrope was riding her bicycle on the right-hand side of a residential road.B.M.D. approached Schrope from behind and saw her in the distance.Visibility was clear and there were no cars approaching from the other direction.At the scene of the accident, B.M.D. gave a recorded statement to police.The officer conducting the interview asked B.M.D. if she was being treated for any medical conditions, and she responded "mild depression."She reported to the officer she had taken Paxil that day and had a glass of wine the prior evening.There is no evidence in the record that the police conducted a field sobriety check.The police did not request a blood draw or an Alcotest.A police report concluded, Despite the fact that Schrope suffered fatal injuries, B.M.D. was only charged with and convicted of careless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97, after a trial in municipal court.
On May 4, 2015, plaintiff filed a wrongful death and survivorship claim against B.M.D.3Through discovery, plaintiff learned B.M.D. was under the care of psychiatrist Stefan Lerner, M.D, and plaintiff named him as a defendant in a first amended complaint.During B.M.D.'s deposition, she was asked about what medications she took.At the time of the crash, B.M.D. was prescribed at least six psychiatric medications, including: (1) duloxetine (Cymbalta ); (2) lamotrigine (Lamictal ); (3) lithium carbonate (Lithobid ); (4) trazadone; (5) dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride (Focalin ); and (6) methylphenidate (Concerta ).B.M.D. admitted she took duloxetine, lamotrigine and lithium carbonate on the morning of the crash.When asked if she took trazodone the night before the crash, she testified she did not know, and, when asked if it was possible, she answered "it's possible."She also consumed some wine the night before.B.M.D. also testified she did not experience side effects from her medications except for Focalin.
Focalin is a central nervous system stimulant used to treat Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).B.M.D. admitted Focalin made her "feel a little speedy" as if she was "on speed."She initially denied taking Focalin on the day of the crash because "[i]t had such bad ramifications, I didn't want to bring it up," but later admitted it was possible she"took half of the dose I should have."
On June 8, 2014, Lerner mailed B.M.D. a prescription for Concerta without meeting with her in person.Concerta is also a central nervous system stimulant.B.M.D. testified she did not complain to Lerner of any adverse reaction to Focalin, and Lerner did not document why he wrote her a new prescription.In her deposition, B.M.D. could not recall whether she took either one, neither or both Focalin and Concerta on the morning of the crash.
Lerner began working with B.M.D. in 2001.Over the course of thirteen years, up and until the crash, he wrote her 160 initial prescriptions and over 250 refill prescriptions.Lerner diagnosed B.M.D. with Major Depressive Disorder, ADD and panic disorder but not bi-polar disorder, although he opined she exhibited bi-polar-like symptoms.During her testimony, B.M.D. exhibited limited knowledge about the purpose and effect of each drug she was prescribed and admitted she often altered dosages without consulting Lerner.She denied Lerner ever warned her against driving after ingesting her medication.However, Lerner testified he would have warned her, especially if she felt drowsy or light-headed.
B.M.D. sometimes missed her appointments with Lerner.Lerner explained this was problematic because he did not want to alter B.M.D.'s medication regimen and recognized the importance of meeting with her in person to determine how she was responding to the medication.Lerner acknowledged he sometimes mailed prescriptions to B.M.D. without meeting with her in person and admitted to mailing her a prescription for Concerta on June 8, 2014.Prior to the crash, B.M.D.'s last meeting with Lerner was April 3, 2014.
Several years before the accident, B.M.D. told Lerner she had panic attacks that either occurred while she was driving or left her feeling like she could not drive.She reported experiencing one panic attack while driving so severe that she had to pull over.Lerner was aware B.M.D. experienced panic attacks while driving but was under the impression "she has [not] had much trouble in that area" because she continued to drive without incident.
Although plaintiff's complaint names B.M.D.'s pharmacist as "John/Jane Doe Doctors/Pharmacists," the record lacks any mention of who filled B.M.D.'s prescriptions.Of particular significance is the absence of any record or testimony about whether B.M.D.'s pharmacist provided written or oral warnings of the potential side effects of the medications.No pharmacy records are included in the appellate record.
Lerner moved for summary judgment on March 27, 2018.Lerner argued he owed no duty of care to Schrope because she was not a readily identifiable victim.Lerner argued a therapist has no duty to warn unless he or she knows or should know their patient intends to harm a readily identifiable victim.
Plaintiff opposed Lerner's motion and submitted the report of two experts.Robert J. Pandina, Ph.D., opined B.M.D.'s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired when she struck Schrope.4
Pandina explained the purpose and possible side effects of each of the medications B.M.D. was prescribed as follows:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Campbell v. Woodcliff Health & Rehab. Ctr.
...reasonably foreseeable, individuals who contract the virus" from the patient). We recently declined to extend the duty a prescribing physician owes his patient to warn of adverse side effects of prescribed medications for the benefit of third parties.
Vizzoni v. B.M.D., 459 N.J. Super. 554, 566, 212 A.3d 962 (App. Div. 2019). And our Supreme Court has even more recently observed that "[d]etermination75 of whether a duty of care should be found with respect to harm caused by a third party is... -
Doe v. Dordt University
...nor the Restatement Third's definition of duty. See, e.g., Collick v. William Paterson Univ. , No. 16-471 (KM) (JBC), 2016 WL 6824374, at *26 (D.N.J. Nov. 17, 2016) (applying New Jersey law);
Vizzoni v. B.M.D. , 459 N.J. Super. 554, 568, 212 A.3d 962 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 2019)(explaining that New Jersey law relies on considerations of risk, foreseeability, or likelihood of harm); Doe v. Salisbury Univ. , 123 F. Supp. 3d 748, 763 (D. Md. 2015) (applying Maryland law, which has... -
M.C. v. Harnad
...defendant fraternity owed a duty to protect a person attending the defendant's party against foreseeable criminal acts). Foreseeability “‘is based on the defendant's knowledge of the risk of injury.'” Vizzoni v. B.M.D.,
212 A.3d 962, 970 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 2019) (quoting J.S. v. R.T.H., 714 A.2d 924, 928 (N.J. 1998)). “That knowledge may arise from actual awareness ... or knowledge may be constructive when the defendant was in a position to foresee and discover the risk... - Latimore v. N.J. Am. Water Co.