Martha C. Ptaszynski, Etc. v. Atlantic Health Systems, Inc., D/B/A Mt. Kemble Rehabilitation at Morristown Memorial Hospital
111 A.3d 111
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2015Background
- In June 2006, 86‑year‑old Regina Ptaszynski was hospitalized after a fall, later transferred to Mt. Kemble Rehabilitation (MKR), developed pressure sores and a MRSA toe infection, and died in August 2006 after withdrawal of life support. Plaintiff is her daughter and executor.
- Plaintiff sued MKR (Atlantic Health Systems) for negligence, violations of the Nursing Home Residents' Rights and Responsibilities Act (NHA), and wrongful death; jury found liability and awarded $250,000 (negligence), $250,000 (NHA), and $50,000 (wrongful death); attorney fees awarded under the NHA.
- Defendant claimed charitable immunity under the Charitable Immunity Act (CIA), argued MKR was a hospital (limited $250,000 cap) or otherwise a nonprofit entitled to immunity; also argued MKR was not a "nursing home" for NHA purposes.
- Trial rulings: court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment that MKR fell within the NHA definition, qualified plaintiff’s nursing witness as an expert in “nursing law,” and denied pretrial immunity motion but allowed post‑verdict motion; post‑verdict motion to mold the verdict was denied.
- Appellate court reversed and remanded: held the NHA claim brought under N.J.S.A. 30:13‑4.2 (count two) was improperly pleaded/allowed; also found reversible errors requiring retrial/ remand on negligence and wrongful death claims (expert testimony, failure to instruct on preexisting conditions/increased risk, potential double recovery); directed trial court to address CIA immunity and whether MKR is a "nursing home."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.S.A. 30:13‑4.2 authorizes a private cause of action to enforce all NHA "responsibilities" (e.g., §30:13‑3h compliance with statutes/regulations) | 4.2 allows a private right to sue for violations of the Act, including §30:13‑3h | 4.2 only creates a private cause of action for the 1991 amendatory bill (security deposit provisions), not the entire NHA | Reversed: 4.2 applies only to the 1991 amendments (security deposit provisions); count two must be dismissed with prejudice |
| Admissibility/ scope of plaintiff’s nursing expert testifying about "nursing law" and statutory meanings | Expert may explain relevant statutes/regulations and standards of care to jury | Expert should not be permitted to testify as an expert in domestic law or interpret statutory terms (e.g., "dignity") | Reversed: trial court erred in allowing extensive expert testimony as "nursing law" and statutory interpretation; this could have affected jury verdicts |
| Jury instructions re: preexisting conditions/increased risk (Scafidi instruction) | Plaintiff argued the jury had no basis to find preexisting condition caused the harms | Defendant produced expert evidence that preexisting vascular and other conditions could explain bedsores and infection; requested increased‑risk instruction | Reversed: trial court erred by not providing Scafidi/increased‑risk instruction given evidence of preexisting conditions |
| Potential double recovery from overlapping negligence and NHA awards | Plaintiff argued jury could infer distinct harms and instructions prevented double recovery | Defendant argued duplication risk; jury received no guidance to avoid awarding same damages twice | Reversed: because jury could have awarded duplicate damages for same injuries, awards on negligence/NHA/wrongful death must be vacated and retried |
Key Cases Cited
- DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (interpretation of statutory language and legislative intent)
- State v. Grimes, 235 N.J. Super. 75 (expert testimony may not supplant the court’s role in declaring domestic law)
- Scafidi v. Seiler, 119 N.J. 93 (requirement to instruct jury on increased‑risk/preexisting condition when evidence supports it)
- Hardwicke v. American Boychoir School, 188 N.J. 69 (analysis of Charitable Immunity Act and its application to statutory/common‑law claims)
- Buccheri v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 19 N.J. 594 (rule against double recovery/duplicate damages)