Quail v. Shop-Rite Supermarkets, Inc.
188 A.3d 348
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2018Background
- On Oct. 19, 2012 Mary Quail, using a motorized shopping cart at a Shop‑Rite, had her cart catch on a checkout station which fell on her right leg. She said she was OK but developed swelling and a large hematoma and died five days later.
- Deputy county medical examiner Dr. Carlos Fonseca performed an external inspection and the next day a Death Certificate was issued listing manner "accident" and cause "complications of blunt trauma of right lower extremity;" an associated narrative report gave more detail and medical opinions.
- Plaintiff (husband/administrator) sued Shop‑Rite for wrongful death and survival damages alleging negligence caused the leg injury and death. Plaintiff did not retain a medical expert or identify the deputy medical examiner as a testifying expert during discovery.
- Shop‑Rite moved to exclude the Death Certificate and for summary judgment; the trial court excluded the examiner’s opinions from the certificate, denied reopening discovery to obtain the examiner’s report, and granted summary judgment for lack of expert proof of medical causation.
- The Appellate Division affirmed: the State Medical Examiner Act does not compel admission of the examiner’s opinions in a civil trial; N.J.R.E. 808 (net‑opinion/hearsay‑expert rule) and the net‑opinion doctrine required exclusion; refusal to reopen discovery was not an abuse of discretion; summary judgment was proper for lack of medical causation proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.S.A. 52:17B‑92 requires admission of the Death Certificate’s opinions in a civil trial | The statute makes medical examiner records "competent evidence" and the death certificate (a filed vital statistic) should be admitted to prove causation | Certificate is hearsay and the examiner’s opinions cannot be admitted absent testimony; statutory language is not absolute | Cert. of Death admissible as a vital statistic but the examiner’s hearsay opinions excluded under Reddick/Theer and N.J.R.E. 808; statute does not give absolute right to admit opinions |
| Whether N.J.R.E. 808 / net‑opinion doctrine allow the certificate’s cause‑of‑death opinion | Plaintiff: vital‑statistics exception (N.J.R.E. 803(c)(9)) allows admission; the certificate suffices to show causation | Defendant: the certificate contains a terse, disputed expert opinion on a complex medical causation issue that must be excluded under Rule 808 and the net‑opinion rule | Court held Rule 808 and the net‑opinion principle bar the non‑testifying examiner’s complex medical conclusions in the certificate |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying reopening discovery to obtain the examiner’s report and to identify the examiner as a witness | Plaintiff: should have been allowed to reopen discovery to secure the examiner’s narrative/report after certificate was excluded | Defendant: plaintiff had the certificate and could have pursued the examiner or retained an expert during discovery; plaintiff failed to show diligence or exceptional circumstances | Denial of discovery reopening was not an abuse of discretion; even if reopened, report would likely be inadmissible absent examiner’s testimony |
| Whether summary judgment was proper without plaintiff’s medical expert on causation | Plaintiff: the death certificate shows causation and suffices to avoid summary judgment | Defendant: complex medical causation requires expert testimony; plaintiff had no medical expert and relied only on excluded certificate opinions | Summary judgment affirmed — plaintiff lacked necessary expert proof to establish proximate medical causation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reddick, 53 N.J. 66 (1968) (medical examiner’s report admissible only after excising non‑testifying examiner’s opinions)
- Theer v. Philip Carey Co., 133 N.J. 610 (1993) (inadmissibility of non‑testifying medical examiner’s opinion on complex causation issues)
- State v. Matulewicz, 101 N.J. 27 (1985) (foundation for Rule 808 restriction on hearsay expert opinion)
- James v. Ruiz, 440 N.J. Super. 45 (App. Div. 2015) (application of Rule 808 to exclude non‑testifying radiologist’s hearsay opinion)
- Hayes v. Delamotte, 231 N.J. 373 (2018) (Supreme Court endorsing strict enforcement of Rule 808)
- Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36 (2015) (discussion of net‑opinion doctrine requiring experts to provide "whys and wherefores")
- Biro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 57 N.J. 204 (1970) (discusses distinction between factual entries on death certificates and excluded conclusions if examiner does not testify)