MILLER VS. LAGANA
2:15-cv-02510
D.N.J.Aug 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff, a New Jersey state prisoner, sued state medical providers and entities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (two counts) and a state-law medical negligence claim; defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the state-law claim.
- Defendants argued the state negligence claim is barred because Plaintiff failed to file an affidavit of merit within 60 days of their Answer, as required by N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 (the AOM Statute); defendants filed an Answer in July 2016 and no affidavit has been filed.
- Plaintiff opposed on equitable grounds (laches/equitable estoppel) and on the substantive ground that parts of his negligence claim fall within New Jersey’s common-knowledge exception to the AOM requirement.
- Plaintiff asserted defendants delayed asserting the AOM defense (did not raise it in dispositive motions for ~18 months) and withheld discovery needed to obtain an affidavit of merit until after filing the instant motion; defendants did not meaningfully dispute the discovery-timing facts.
- The Court found defendants’ unexplained delay prejudiced Plaintiff under Knorr and estopped defendants from enforcing the AOM defense now; the Court also agreed defendants should not benefit from withholding discovery (citing Aster).
- The Court recognized some claims likely fit the common-knowledge exception but did not delineate which; it denied defendants’ motion and gave Plaintiff 60 days from the Order to comply with the AOM statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants can obtain summary judgment on the state-law malpractice claim for failure to file an affidavit of merit | Defendants delayed asserting the AOM defense (laches/equitable estoppel) and withheld discovery needed to obtain an affidavit, so they should be estopped; alternatively, some claims fall within the common-knowledge exception | Plaintiff’s obligation to file an affidavit is statutory and their Answer preserved the defense; discovery rules provide other remedies (N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28) | Denied. Court applied laches/equitable estoppel due to unexplained delay and discovery withholding; granted Plaintiff 60 days to file affidavit where required |
| Whether defendants’ prior counsel conduct (delay) excuses Plaintiff’s noncompliance with AOM deadline | Delay by defendants induced Plaintiff to rely on non-enforcement and delayed his ability to secure an expert affidavit | Statutory deadline remains; plaintiff could have used statutory procedures to excuse or delay filing | Court found defendants’ delay in asserting the defense was inexcusable and prejudicial and thus barred enforcement now; equitable relief granted |
| Whether withholding discovery by defendants bars them from invoking the AOM requirement | Withholding necessary records prevented Plaintiff from procuring an affidavit; defendants should not use that as a shield | Plaintiff could have invoked statutory relief mechanisms instead of equitable estoppel | Court agreed with Plaintiff and relied on Aster to estop defendants from profiting from withheld discovery |
| Whether Plaintiff’s claims fall within the common-knowledge exception to the affidavit requirement | Some alleged failures (ignoring sick calls, missing medications, failing transports) are matters jurors can assess without expert testimony | The case as pleaded is complex medical malpractice; much will require expert proof and thus needs affidavits | Court observed some claims likely fall within the exception but did not decide specifics; Plaintiff must file affidavits for claims not within the exception within 60 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Aster ex rel. Garofalo v. Shoreline Behavioral Health, 346 N.J. Super. 536 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.) (licensed professional cannot withhold records and then rely on lack of affidavit to defeat claim)
- Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169 (N.J. 2003) (laches may bar enforcement of a known right when delay is inexcusable and prejudices the other party)
- Hubbard v. Reed, 168 N.J. 387 (N.J. 2001) (common-knowledge exception: no affidavit required where jurors can decide negligence without expert testimony)