Michael B. Zerres obtains reversal of lower Court ruling that NJ malpractice defendant was entitled to pro tanto credit for an out of state settlement obtained by plaintiff – Kranz v. Schuss – A-4918-13T1; decided August 31, 2016
In a recent published Appellate Division decision, Blume Forte partner, Michael B. Zerres, obtained a reversal of a lower Court decision holding that a medical malpractice defendant was entitled to a pro tanto credit for the full amount of an out of state settlement plaintiff had obtained.
Plaintiff permitted to obtain new Affidavit of Merit when it was unknown that original expert had retired – Castello v. Wohler, 2016 WL 3369247 (N.J. App. June 20, 2016),
This is a medical malpractice matter where the plaintiff’s counsel timely served an Affidavit of Merit (“AOM”) and reasonably relied on the AOM and the expert’s curriculum vitae, which erroneously stated that the witness is currently practicing medicine. Plaintiff’s counsel later discovers that error, through no fault of his own, after the 120 day deadline, set forth in N.J.S.A. §§ 2A:53A-26 to 2A:53A-29, expired. Under those circumstances, the Appellate Division held that exceptional circumstances existed permitting a discovery extension so that plaintiff has sufficient time to hire a different expert witness who is qualified under the New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 2A:53A-37 to 2A:53A-42 to issue a new AOM, and to serve a corresponding expert report.
Appellate Division affirms that a patient’s treating doctor may testify as to the cause of an injury – Rothman v. Cole – A-1838-14T1 – decided July 21, 2016
This is a medical malpractice matter where the defendant is appealing from a final judgment following a jury trial. Plaintiff, a 64 year old woman who underwent a heart pacemaker implant surgery performed by defendant in 2008, was later advised in 2009 by her long term treating physician and cardiologist, Dr. Amendo, that the pacemaker wire had been malpositioned after he had conducted a nuclear stress test. Subsequent testing by a Dr. Leon revealed that the lead wire for plaintiff’s pacemaker was inserted through plaintiff’s subclavian artery and into the left ventricle of her heart, rather than the right ventricle as defendant had understood he had done, and that a ostial occlusion of the left internal mammary artery (“LIMA”) caused an obstruction, which required the insertion of a stent.