Buck v. Henry
207 N.J. 377
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Buck sues Dr. Henry for medical malpractice and names Sanofi entities for product liability in New Jersey Superior Court.
- Buck claims Ambien prescribed by Henry caused severe injury; Henry answered denying deviation and asserted Affidavit of Merit defenses.
- Buck filed two affidavits of merit, one from a psychiatrist and one from an emergency-medicine specialist; Ferreira conference was not held.
- Trial court dismissed on summary judgment, holding the affidavit from the non-equivalent specialists was inadequate under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41.
- Appellate Division affirmed dismissal, focusing on whether the affidavits conformed to the statute and the role of the Ferreira conference.
- The Supreme Court remands for a Ferreira conference consistent with the opinion; it also directs that defendants disclose specialty in answers going forward.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit of merit requirements apply to the treating physician's actual specialty | Buck contends affidavits from psychiatry and emergency medicine suffice. | Henry argues only a family-practice specialty comparable to his care is permissible. | Remand for Ferreira conference; admissibility depends on proper specialty alignment per statute. |
| Role and timing of Ferreira conference under the Amended Affidavit of Merit statute | Ferreira conference should have resolved the specialty issues before summary judgment. | Conference not necessary due to defendant's notice and plaintiff's chosen affidavits. | Ferreira conference required; remand to conduct conference consistent with the opinion. |
| Whether failure to hold a Ferreira conference bars tolling or dismissal with prejudice | Record showed good-faith effort; dismissal should not be with prejudice without conference. | Statute precludes tolling; failure to meet affidavit standards warrants dismissal. | Remand with guidance that if deficiencies persist after conference, thirty-day cure period applies; dismissal only if still deficient. |
| Whether the trial court and appellate rulings correctly interpreted N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41 regarding general practitioners vs specialists | Family medicine can be a specialty; board certification not strictly required for all family practitioners. | Affidavits must come from like-qualified experts aligned with the defendant's specialty. | Statutory framework governs; treatment alignment with specialty determines affidavit adequacy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 178 N.J. 144 (2003) (established Ferreira conference to assess affidavit adequacy)
- Ryan v. Renny, 203 N.J. 37 (2010) (equivalency and specialty requirements for experts under 2A:53A-41)
- Paragon Contractors, Inc. v. Peachtree Condo. Ass'n, 202 N.J. 415 (2010) (confirms non-tolling nature of Ferreira conference timelines)
- Burns v. Belafsky, 166 N.J. 466 (2001) (statutory timing and extensions for affidavits of merit)
- Galik v. Clara Maass Med. Ctr., 167 N.J. 341 (2001) (purpose of Affidavit of Merit statute to weed out frivolous claims)