In this administrative law action, Parvez Dara, M.D., appeals from the decision of the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners revoking his medical license and ordering him to pay $30,000 in penalties. Dara also appeals the Board’s award of $372,029.28 in fees and costs to the State. The administrative penalties arose due to allegations that Dara had harmed his patients and employees by failing to implement proper infection control procedures. The Attorney General filed a Complaint with the Board against Dara, alleging that Dara neglected to maintain sanitary conditions or develop proper policies and procedures, improperly handled medication, and inadequately supervised staff, thereby resulting in a risk of harm, and actual harm, to his patients.
The second Count of the Complaint further alleged that Dara, despite having been on notice, repeated and deliberately violated Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards regarding toxic and hazardous substances, thus posing a danger to public health. Specifically, there were allegations that 29 of Dara’s patients had contracted Hepatitis B, stemming from his practice. When investigators from OCHD (Ocean County Health Department), DHSS, and the Board of Medical Examiners, inspected Dara’s office and interviewed his staff, they discovered that staff members often failed to change their gloves after performing invasive procedures, Dara failed to provide policies or procedures for the proper use and storage of medications and the office possessed neither a written infection control manual nor proper infection control policies and procedures. An expert testified that each of these breaches was significant, and, had been associated with outbreaks of diseases in the past. The expert opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that those patients infected with Hepatitis B suffered actual harm as a result of Dara’s improper practices. Read the rest »
This medical malpractice action arises from alleged negligent neonatal care of the infant decedent following her delivery via C-section. The defendant physicians moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff’s neonatologist expert was not qualified to testify under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(a)(1) (The Patients First Act) because he was retired before the alleged malpractice occurred. The plaintiffs argue that, although the expert is retired from active clinical practice, because he is still Board Certified in neonatology, he is qualified.
The court held that the expert failed to meet the statutory requirements because he was no longer practicing at a hospital at the time of the occurrence, and thus, he was also not credentialed by a hospital at the time of the occurrence. Furthermore, the court determined the expert could not testify because he did not devote a majority of his professional time to the clinical practice of neonatology in the year preceding the occurrence, and, although he was teaching at the time of the occurrence, he was only teaching physician assistants, which does not satisfy the requirement that the expert be instructing students in the same health care profession in which the defendant is licensed. Read the rest »
This medical malpractice action arises out of the alleged negligent treatment of plaintiff’s decedent at Clara Maas Continuing Care Center (CMCCC). Plaintiff’s decedent alleges that while a patient at CMCCC, he developed severe bed sores and pressure ulcers due to lack of proper care. The defendants advised plaintiffs’ counsel that the patient’s medical records could not be located. However, after a Ferreira conference, the court ordered defendants to subpoena the medical records from the owner of an off-site facility where they were supposedly stored. Defendants finally provided plaintiffs with a set of records; however, plaintiffs alleged that the records were incomplete. Plaintiffs’ counsel informed defendants’ counsel that the records were not complete, and, as such, insufficient for plaintiffs’ expert to provide an Affidavit of Merit.
Defendants then filed a motion asserting that plaintiffs’ failure to produce an Affidavit of Merit within the statutory time period, along with their failure to file a motion to extend the time period, warranted the dismissal of plaintiffs’ case with prejudice. Plaintiffs opposed defendants’ motion by stating that the defendants’ failure to provide a complete copy of plaintiff’s decedents’ medical records precluded the plaintiffs from timely securing the Affidavit of Merit, and thus, they were entitled to the protections of the Affidavit of Merit’s safety valve provision. The court found that case law provides that it should be presumed that the medical records that were not produced have had a substantial bearing on plaintiff’s preparation of the Affidavit, and, that the burden of establishing otherwise should be borne by the party that has not produced the records. Read the rest »