Abigail Ginsberg v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc.
117 A.3d 200
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2015Background
- Parents Tamar and Ari Ginsberg (then living in New York) allege genetic testing/counseling failures led to birth (2008) of daughter Abigail, later diagnosed with Tay‑Sachs; plaintiffs later moved to New Jersey and sued in New Jersey.
- Defendants include: Quest Diagnostics (principal place of business NJ but handled Ari’s specimen/reporting in New York), Mt. Sinai (NY lab that performed testing), Dr. Andrew Rubenstein (NJ gynecologist), Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr. and genetic counselor Judith Durcan (both NJ).
- Plaintiffs assert wrongful birth, wrongful life (on behalf of child), medical malpractice, negligent hiring, and related negligence claims; plaintiffs did not sue Ari’s NY primary care physician (Dr. Samson).
- Trial court ruled New Jersey law applied to the entire case; multiple defendants and Mt. Sinai appealed that interlocutory choice‑of‑law ruling.
- Appellate court applied the Restatement/“most significant relationship” framework (as adopted in P.V. ex rel. T.V. v. Camp Jaycee) and held choice‑of‑law may be done defendant‑by‑defendant: New York law governs claims against Quest and Mt. Sinai; New Jersey law governs claims against the NJ health‑care defendants; several derivative and statute‑of‑limitations questions were reserved to the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single state's law must govern the entire case or a defendant‑by‑defendant approach is permitted | NJ law should apply to all defendants (trial court ruling) | Some defendants (Quest, Mt. Sinai) argued NY law should apply; others argued a single state should govern (they preferred NY) | Court permits defendant‑by‑defendant choice‑of‑law; more than one state's law may apply in same litigation |
| Choice of law for Quest and Mt. Sinai (lab/testing claims arising in NY) | Plaintiffs urged NJ law applies | Quest and Mt. Sinai argued NY law governs because the testing and reporting occurred in NY | Held: New York law governs tort claims against Quest and Mt. Sinai |
| Choice of law for NJ health‑care defendants (Rubenstein, HUMC, Durcan) | Plaintiffs urged NJ law governs | NJ defendants contended NY law should apply because overall injury occurred in NY | Held: New Jersey law governs claims against these NJ‑licensed, NJ‑based providers because their alleged conduct occurred in NJ and NJ has strong regulatory interests |
| Cross‑claims, contractual indemnity, and statutes of limitations (derivative/choice issues) | Plaintiffs favored NJ law for all related claims | Defendants sought NY law for those claims; Quest sought contractual indemnity against Mt. Sinai under a contract whose terms are not fully in the record | Held: Appellate court deferred these issues to the trial court (insufficient record for contractual indemnity; cross‑claims and statutes of limitations to be resolved later, using defendant‑by‑defendant analysis where appropriate) |
Key Cases Cited
- P.V. ex rel. T.V. v. Camp Jaycee, 197 N.J. 132 (N.J. 2008) (adopts Restatement most‑significant‑relationship test for tort choice‑of‑law)
- Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo, 97 N.J. 339 (N.J. 1984) (recognizes limited recovery for wrongful life in New Jersey)
- Becker v. Schwartz, 386 N.E.2d 807 (N.Y. 1978) (New York limits parents’ wrongful‑birth damages to pecuniary expenses)
- Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson, 211 N.J. 362 (N.J. 2012) (confirms issue‑by‑issue choice‑of‑law analysis)
- Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517 (N.J. 2011) (interlocutory rulings, including choice‑of‑law, can be revisited in the court’s sound discretion)