ESTATE OF EDGAR C. GEIGER, III VS. ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL (L-4067-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2267-19
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 20, 2021Background
- Decedent Edgar C. Geiger III was treated at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital (RWJUH) in July 2013 and died on July 22, 2013; plaintiffs allege malpractice by several doctors.
- Within 90 days plaintiffs' counsel sent an October 7, 2013 letter and claim notice to the New Jersey Department of the Treasury (Bureau of Risk Management), copied to RWJUH; the Treasury replied that the claim appeared to be against a local public entity, not the State.
- Plaintiffs never served a tort-claim notice on Rutgers (the public entity that employed four defendant doctors); instead they served Treasury and RWJUH (a private nonprofit hospital).
- Plaintiffs filed suit in July 2015; defendants (the Rutgers-employed doctors) asserted TCA defenses and moved to dismiss for failure to file a timely notice of claim under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA).
- The motion judge held the October 2013 notice was timely but defective because it was not served on the proper public entity (Rutgers) and did not substantially comply with the TCA; the complaint was dismissed with prejudice as to those doctors.
- Plaintiffs appeal only the ruling that their October 2013 notices did not substantially comply; they do not challenge the denial of leave to file a late notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether serving the Treasury and RWJUH satisfied TCA notice requirements for claims against Rutgers-employed doctors | Plaintiffs: service on Treasury (and copying RWJUH) substantially complied and put the State/public entities on notice | Defendants: TCA requires filing directly with the specific public entity (Rutgers); Treasury/RWJUH service is not equivalent | Held: No. Service on Treasury and RWJUH did not substantially comply; plaintiffs never served the local public entity (Rutgers) and therefore failed to provide required notice |
| Whether the substantial-compliance doctrine can excuse failure to file with the specific public entity | Plaintiffs: equitable doctrine should apply to prevent harsh forfeiture when notice otherwise informs officials | Defendants: substantial compliance does not apply where the public entity entitled to notice receives no effective notice | Held: Substantial compliance is limited; it cannot substitute for filing with the specific local public entity when that entity receives no effective notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Feinberg v. N.J. Dep't of Env'l Prot., 137 N.J. 126 (1994) (standards for reviewing motions to dismiss — assume plaintiff's facts and inferences)
- McDade v. Siazon, 208 N.J. 463 (2011) (TCA requires notice be filed directly with the specific local entity)
- D.D. v. Univ. of Med. & Dent. of N.J., 213 N.J. 130 (2013) (limits of substantial-compliance doctrine in TCA context)
- Lebron v. Sanchez, 407 N.J. Super. 204 (App. Div. 2009) (example of when a technically deficient notice nevertheless substantially complied)
- Velez v. City of Jersey City, 180 N.J. 284 (2004) (purpose of TCA notice: investigation, settlement, correction, and advance warning of liability)
- Ben Elazar v. Macrietta Cleaners, Inc., 230 N.J. 123 (2017) (time limits and bar for failure to file notice under TCA)
- Galik v. Clara Maass Med. Ctr., 167 N.J. 341 (2001) (equitable application of substantial compliance to avoid harsh consequences)
- Jones v. Morey's Pier, Inc., 230 N.J. 142 (2017) (de novo review where only a question of law remains)