Ginamarie Gomes v. the County of Monmouth and Correct
134 A.3d 33
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2016Background
- GinaMarie Gomes, while briefly incarcerated at Monmouth County Correctional Institution (MCCI), alleges jail medical staff (provided by private contractor Correct Care Solutions, LLC — CCS) confiscated her prescribed antibiotic (Cipro) and failed to provide replacement, leading to a large epidural abscess and permanent paralysis.
- CCS provided onsite medical services to the County under contract; most jail medical records bore CCS’s name/logo. The actual contract was not in the record.
- Gomes served a tort-claims notice on Monmouth County (local public entity) within 90 days; County acknowledged receipt and stated it had reported the claim to CCS and identified CCS’s insurer.
- Gomes sued County and CCS for negligence, intentional torts, and breach of contract. Both defendants moved to dismiss; the motion judge dismissed all claims against both defendants with prejudice.
- The judge dismissed CCS because Gomes did not serve a separate TCA notice on CCS, treating CCS as a “public entity.” The judge dismissed County claims (including intentional torts) under TCA limits on liability.
- On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed dismissal of CCS (holding TCA notice need not be served on private government contractors), affirmed dismissal of certain intentional-tort claims against County, and remanded remaining claims for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a private contractor providing government services (CCS) must be served a separate TCA tort-claims notice before suit | Gomes: Serving County sufficed; no statutory requirement to serve contractor separately | County/CCS: CCS functions as a public entity/its workers are functional equivalents of public employees; TCA notice required to preserve claims | Held: No. TCA does not require separate pre-suit notice to private government contractors; reversal of dismissal as to CCS |
| Whether Hoag v. Brown requires treating contractor as public entity for TCA notice purposes | Gomes: Hoag is inapposite; Gomes was an inmate, not an employee | Defendants: Hoag and unpublished decisions support treating contractor employees as functional equivalents of public employees | Held: Hoag is distinguishable; trial court misapplied it for notice issue |
| Whether dismissal of remaining negligence/contract claims against County was proper at this stage | Gomes: Dismissal premature; factual development and discovery needed (e.g., contract, roles of County employees) | County: Claims fail as a matter of law (intentional torts barred; lack of County employee involvement alleged) | Held: Some intentional-tort claims against County affirmed dismissed; other claims dismissal vacated as premature and remanded for discovery and further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoag v. Brown, 397 N.J. Super. 34 (App. Div. 2007) (considered whether a private contractor’s employee could be treated as a public employee for certain employment-law purposes)
- Beauchamp v. Avedio, 164 N.J. 111 (2000) (articulates TCA notice goals and purposes)
- Printing Mart–Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989) (requirement that courts liberally search complaints before dismissing with prejudice)