History
  • No items yet
midpage
Johnny Medina v. Ceasar G. Pitta, M.D.
120 A.3d 944
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2015
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiff (diabetic) treated by ophthalmologists beginning October 2007 for proliferative diabetic retinopathy; ultimately lost vision in right eye after retinal detachment discovered in March 2011.
  • Plaintiff served an affidavit of merit (AOM) and report from Dr. Peter H. Morse (board-certified ophthalmologist) but Dr. Morse had "fully retired" on January 1, 2007 and lacked hospital privileges or active practice at the time of alleged deviations.
  • Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Dr. Morse did not meet the New Jersey PFA (N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-37 to -42) qualification requirements for testifying experts; motions granted and dismissal entered with prejudice.
  • Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, raising for the first time substantial compliance, extraordinary circumstances, and estoppel arguments; motion denied.
  • No request to extend discovery or to obtain a new expert was made after Dr. Morse’s retirement status became known; the record included expert deposition and discovery, so the motion judge treated the matter on the merits under summary judgment principles.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Dr. Morse met PFA qualifications to testify against non‑board‑certified specialist (Dr. Pitta) Morse is board‑certified ophthalmologist; statute does not require contemporaneous hospital credentialing or active practice to qualify against a non‑board‑certified specialist PFA requires a proposed expert to have "specialized at the time of the occurrence" (i.e., actively practiced the specialty at occurrence) Dr. Morse was retired before the alleged deviations and thus did not meet PFA contemporaneity requirement; not qualified
Whether Dr. Morse met enhanced PFA requirements to testify against board‑certified defendants (Panariello, Cervenak) Morse’s board certification and past practice suffice For board‑certified defendants, expert must have recent hospital credentialing or majority clinical/teaching time in the year before the occurrence Morse lacked hospital credentialing and active clinical/teaching involvement in the year preceding the occurrences; not qualified
Whether defendants were estopped from invoking specialty because they failed to list specialty in answers Defendants failed to specify specialty in answers; should be estopped from later asserting specialty-based challenge Buck and Rule amendments require defendants to identify specialty, but estoppel is not automatic; plaintiff failed to timely raise estoppel Estoppel inapplicable here; plaintiffs raised the argument belatedly and Morse still fails PFA time‑based requirements
Whether doctrines of substantial compliance or extraordinary circumstances excuse lack of a statutorily‑qualified expert at summary judgment stage Substantial compliance/extraordinary circumstances should permit curing or allow claim to proceed Those doctrines apply to AOM timing/deficiencies, not to summary judgment challenges to whether an expert is statutorily authorized to testify; allowing them would defeat PFA's remedial scheme Doctrines are inapplicable at summary judgment to avoid undermining PFA; dismissal with prejudice appropriate

Key Cases Cited

  • Ryan v. Renny, 203 N.J. 37 (2010) (interpreting PFA contemporaneity and waiver provisions)
  • Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377 (2011) (requiring defendants to identify specialty in answer and discussing AOM sufficiency)
  • Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 178 N.J. 144 (2003) (explaining AOM timing, substantial compliance, and extraordinary‑circumstances doctrines)
  • Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463 (2013) (holding non‑statutorily qualified experts cannot testify on standard of care despite N.J.R.E. 702 considerations)
  • Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment standards and competing jurisprudential aims)
  • Gardner v. Pawliw, 150 N.J. 359 (1997) (elements required to prove medical malpractice)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Johnny Medina v. Ceasar G. Pitta, M.D.
Court Name: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Date Published: Aug 11, 2015
Citation: 120 A.3d 944
Docket Number: A-5023-12T1
Court Abbreviation: N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.