Rachele Louise Castello v. Alexander M. Wohler, M.D.
139 A.3d 1218
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2016Background
- Plaintiff sued Dr. Wohler for negligent hernia surgery; she served an affidavit of merit (AOM) signed by Dr. John Edoga and attached a CV indicating he was an active attending surgeon.
- Defendant waived a Ferreira conference and signed a consent order waiving “any objection” to Edoga’s qualifications.
- Later discovery and Edoga’s expert report were served; the CVs consistently suggested active practice.
- At deposition (after the discovery end date), Edoga revealed he had retired ~2005 and only volunteered limited teaching thereafter.
- Defendant moved (after the DED) to bar Edoga under the Patients First Act (PFA); the trial court barred Edoga and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with the PFA and denied reopening discovery.
- Appellate court affirmed barring Edoga but reversed dismissal with prejudice, holding exceptional circumstances warranted a limited extension of discovery to allow plaintiff to obtain a new, PFA‑qualified expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Edoga met PFA preliminary and additional qualifications | Edoga satisfied PFA (met a.(1) or a.(2) and preliminary specialty requirement) | Edoga retired before the occurrence and thus did not meet the PFA’s practice/credentialing/instruction requirements | Held: Edoga did not meet the PFA (not actively practicing; failed a.(1) and a.(2)) |
| Whether court should have waived PFA same‑specialty/board requirements under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A‑41(c) | Waiver appropriate because of limited expert availability and Edoga’s experience/teaching | Waiver unwarranted; plaintiff failed to show good‑faith efforts or that Edoga’s recent activity satisfied subsection (c) | Held: No waiver — plaintiff did not show required good‑faith search and Edoga lacked requisite active involvement/full‑time teaching |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper after expert disqualified | Plaintiff sought time to retain a new expert and reopen discovery; counsel reasonably relied on AOM/CV errors | Defendant argued dismissal appropriate once plaintiff’s expert was barred; relied on precedent (Medina) | Held: Dismissal with prejudice was improper; exceptional circumstances existed (reasonable reliance on AOM/CV, no prior notice) and court must allow limited discovery extension to obtain a new qualified expert |
| Whether plaintiff showed exceptional circumstances to extend discovery after DED | Counsel acted diligently and reasonably relied on AOM/CV; the late discovery of retirement was beyond plaintiff’s control | Dismissal appropriate; substantial‑compliance/extraordinary‑circumstances doctrines inapplicable | Held: Four Rivers factors satisfied — court abused discretion in denying extension; remand to reopen discovery and allow new AOM/report |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 178 N.J. 144 (2003) (establishes Ferreira conference requirement to address AOM issues early)
- Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463 (2013) (interpreting PFA expert qualifications and additional requirements when defendant is board‑certified)
- Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377 (2011) (reaffirming 90‑day Ferreira conference and need to resolve AOM problems early)
- Medina v. Pitta, 442 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div.) (2015) (distinguishable — denial of relief where plaintiff knew expert was retired before AOM service)