TIMOTHY BLAKE VS. ALARIS HEALTH AT ESSEX(L-1528-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1254-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Timothy Blake (440 lbs) fell and was injured while being lifted out of a wheelchair at Alaris Health at Essex, a licensed healthcare facility.
- Blake sued alleging the fall resulted from "inadequate assistance" and negligence; complaint did not identify who lifted him.
- Defendant Alaris moved to dismiss under R. 4:6-2(e) for failure to file an affidavit of merit (AOM) required by N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27.
- Alaris argued an AOM was required because it is a licensed healthcare provider and professional standards govern patient handling.
- Blake argued the common-knowledge/ordinary-negligence exception applied (no AOM required) because assisting an overweight person from a chair does not require expert testimony.
- Trial court granted dismissal with prejudice for failure to file an AOM; Appellate Division reversed and remanded, holding dismissal was improper at the pleadings stage because Blake alleged ordinary negligence and discovery was needed before requiring an AOM.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an AOM was required to sustain Blake's complaint | Blake: common-knowledge ordinary negligence; no expert needed to show inadequate assistance | Alaris: licensed facility; alleged medical/professional negligence triggers AOM requirement | Court: AOM not required on face of complaint because plaintiff pleaded ordinary negligence; dismissal premature |
| Proper use of R. 4:6-2(e) dismissal for failure to file an AOM | Blake: dismissal inappropriate without discovery; complaint alleges a cognizable negligence claim | Alaris: pleadings insufficient under statute, so dismissal warranted | Court: motion judge erred; inquiry limited to legal sufficiency and complaint suggests ordinary negligence meriting discovery |
| Standard for determining whether expert testimony is necessary | Blake: lay jurors can assess assistance in moving a patient | Alaris: specialized standards govern patient handling at licensed facilities | Court: applies common-knowledge doctrine from Hubbard; jurors may be competent to assess simple negligence without expert evidence |
| Need for further factual development before resolving AOM issue | Blake: facts unclear (who lifted, how fall occurred), discovery needed | Alaris: statutory requirement applies regardless of unspecified facts | Court: facts must be developed in discovery before AOM requirement can be assessed; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Nostrame v. Santiago, 213 N.J. 109 (review standard for R. 4:6-2 motions)
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989) (pleadings judged liberally; plaintiffs entitled to reasonable inferences)
- Hubbard ex rel. Hubbard v. Reed, 168 N.J. 387 (2001) (common-knowledge doctrine; expert not required when jurors can assess negligence)
- Bender v. Walgreen Eastern Co., 399 N.J. Super. 584 (2008) (AOM not required when common-knowledge doctrine applies)
- Nowacki v. Cmty. Med. Ctr., 279 N.J. Super. 276 (1995) (jurors competent to assess simple hospital negligence without expert testimony)