AMY M. CAMPANELLI VS. KUSUM S. PATEL(L-3671-12, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1117-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- 2010 car collision where defendant Kusum Patel’s vehicle struck plaintiff Amy Campanelli at an intersection; plaintiff alleged permanent cervical and lumbar injuries.
- Plaintiff presented MRI and EMG evidence and expert testimony from a radiologist (Dr. Damien) and an orthopedist (Dr. Collalto) asserting bulging discs and permanent injury; Dr. Collalto used the "reasonable degree of medical probability" standard at deposition but not at trial.
- Defendant presented defense orthopedist Dr. Bercik who testified injuries were non‑permanent and attributable to degenerative change; he disclosed that ~20% of his work involved preparing (mostly defense) examination reports.
- During summation plaintiff’s counsel made disparaging remarks characterizing Dr. Bercik as a "professional testifier" and implying his opinions favored the "defense industry." The judge interrupted and immediately gave a curative instruction directing the jury to disregard those comments.
- Defendant moved for directed verdict at close of plaintiff’s case and later for a new trial; trial court denied both motions. Jury returned verdict awarding plaintiff $336,000; defendant appeals only on the directed‑verdict/new‑trial grounds (liability conceded on appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summation comments about defense expert required a new trial | Campanelli: comments were fleeting, juror instruction cured any prejudice | Patel: comments were improper, disparaging, suggested bias/insurance and tainted verdict | Court: comments improper but not numerous; prompt, clear curative instruction prevented miscarriage of justice; no new trial |
| Whether aggressive cross‑examination of defense expert deprived defendant of fair trial | Campanelli: vigorous cross‑examination explored credibility and MRI interpretation; permissible | Patel: cross‑examination was excessive and prejudicial | Court: cross‑examination acceptable; two limited judicial admonitions sufficed; no unfair trial |
| Whether plaintiff’s expert testimony was legally sufficient without stating "reasonable degree of medical probability" at trial | Campanelli: Dr. Collalto’s deposition used the standard and the court allowed supplementation; evidence supported permanency | Patel: Trial testimony lacked the medical‑probability statement, so no legally sufficient proof of permanency | Court: trial court acted within discretion to permit supplementation; viewing evidence favorably to plaintiff, sufficiency exists; directed verdict denied |
| Standard of review on motions for new trial and directed verdict | N/A: trial court’s discretion and jury verdict entitled to deference; appellate review for miscarriage of justice and legal sufficiency | N/A: same standards applied | Court: applied established standards (deference to jury and trial court; independent review for miscarriage of justice and mechanical test for directed verdict) |
Key Cases Cited
- Risko v. Thompson Muller Auto. Grp., 206 N.J. 506 (review standard for denial of new trial; deference to trial court)
- Bender v. Adelson, 187 N.J. 411 (scope of summation argument and counsel latitude)
- Geler v. Akawie, 358 N.J. Super. 437 (cumulative effect of improper summation comments can require new trial)
- Frugis v. Bracigliano, 177 N.J. 250 (standard for reviewing directed‑verdict motion)
- Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2 (accept evidence most favorable to nonmoving party on directed‑verdict review)