D.D. v. University of Medicine & Dentistry
213 N.J. 130
| N.J. | 2013Background
- The New Jersey Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity within controlled statutory limits.
- The ninety-day notice requirement (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8) is a strict threshold to be timely filed before suit.
- The statute allows a late filing within one year after accrual if extraordinary circumstances exist (N.J.S.A. 59:8-9).
- Plaintiff D.D. alleged that confidential health information about her was publicized by Rutgers and UMDNJ after a December 2009 meeting.
- Plaintiff sought leave to file a late notice in April 2010, after her first attorney failed to act.
- The trial court granted leave due to alleged extraordinary circumstances and medical evidence; Appellate Division affirmed with substantial compliance reasoning; this Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether medical/psychological state constitutes extraordinary circumstances | D.D.’s deteriorating health during the relevant window shows extraordinary circumstances | Medical state was not severe enough to excuse noncompliance | No; medical state alone did not meet the standard |
| Whether attorney inattention constitutes extraordinary circumstances | Attorney neglect plus medical distress justify extraordinary circumstances | Attorney inattention cannot alone sustain extraordinary circumstances | No; attorney inattention cannot by itself satisfy the standard, though malpractice could be actionable later |
| Whether substantial compliance can excuse untimely notice | Oral notice at December meeting could substantially comply | Oral notice cannot satisfy written-notice requirement | Rejected; substantial compliance cannot relieve the writing requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111 (N.J. 2000) (mentions prompt pursuit of claim despite attorney confusion about accrual)
- Lowe v. Zarghami, 158 N.J. 606 (N.J. 1999) (raised the pre-1994 liberal standard for late notices)
- Rogers v. Cape May Cnty. Office of the Pub. Defender, 208 N.J. 414 (N.J. 2011) (reiterates the extraordinary-circumstances standard)
- Zois v. N.J. Sports & Exposition Auth., 286 N.J. Super. 670 (App.Div. 1996) (attorney inattention insufficient under pre-1994 standard)
- Velez v. City of Jersey City, 358 N.J. Super. 224 (App.Div. 2003) (oral notice does not constitute substantial compliance)
- Ohlweiler v. Twp. of Chatham, 290 N.J. Super. 399 (App.Div. 1996) (examines attorney advice affecting accrual)
- Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111 (N.J. 2000) (Beauchamp discussed attorney misperception about accrual and extraordinary circumstances)
- Bayer v. Twp. of Union, 414 N.J. Super. 238 (App.Div. 2010) (confirms cautious application of extraordinary-circumstances standard)