Contact Us





Anti-Spam Question:
 

Medical Malpractice

Komlodi Part 6: “Substantial factor” vs. “but-for” Charge on Causation

By Attorney Michael B. Zerres on November 13, 2014

Further Analysis of Scalfidi Charge in Komlodi v. Picciano, WL 2050758 (N.J. 2014)
See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Here, the Court charged the jury on both the “substantial factor” and “but for” instructions on proximate cause. The “but-for” causation charge was given inadvertently by the Court and was done so without objection from either party.  A “but-for” charge is appropriate when there is only one potential cause of the harm or injury. 

In contrast, the “substantial factor” instruction is given when there are concurrent causes capable of producing the harm or injury.  A tortfeasor will be held answerable if its negligent conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries, even where there are other intervening causes which were foreseeable. Read the rest »

Posted in: Medical Malpractice


Komlodi Part 5: Foreseeability and Intervening/Superseding Causes

By Attorney Michael B. Zerres on November 6, 2014

Further Analysis of Scalfidi Charge in Komlodi v. Picciano, WL 2050758 (N.J. 2014)
See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

The Trial Court correctly elected to charge the jury on both intervening/superseding causation and general foreseeability. The intervening/superseding causation charge attempts to focus the jury’s attention on the different arguments of the parties. Thus, while a patient’s deliberate act is foreseeable, and not a superseding cause, that does not preclude the need to instruct the jury on intervening/superseding causes.

The concepts of foreseeability and intervening/superseding causation are related and juries need to be educated on both. Foreseeability is a constituent part of proximate cause and an act is foreseeable when a reasonably prudent, similarly situated person would anticipate a risk that his/her negligent conduct would cause injury or harm to another. Read the rest »

Posted in: Medical Malpractice


Komlodi Part 4: Further Analysis of the Scafidi Charge

By Attorney Michael B. Zerres on November 4, 2014

Part 4 of the Komlodi v. Picciano, WL 2050758 (N.J. 2014)
See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

The Use of the Scafidi Charge

In Scafidi v. Seiler, 119 N.J. 93 (1990),  a two-part test was created for proving causation in cases where plaintiff’s injuries are, in part,  attributable to a pre-existing condition.  First, the jury must decide whether negligent treatment increased the risk of harm posed by the patient’s pre-existing condition.  If so, there are concurrent causes of harm and the traditional “but-for” causation charge would not apply. Then, the jury must determine whether the increased risk was a substantial factor in causing the ultimate result.  If these two elements are proven by a preponderance of the credible evidence, the burden shifts to the defendant to show what damages are attributable solely to the preexisting condition. Read the rest »

Posted in: Medical Malpractice


Komlodi v. Picciano, WL 2050758 (N.J. 2014)

By Attorney Michael B. Zerres on November 3, 2014

Komlodi Part 3

Plaintiff alleged Dr. Picciano breached the duty of care in prescribing a Duragesic patch to Michelle Komlodi, a known abuser of drugs and alcohol who orally ingested the patch, resulting in a severe brain injury. The Trial Court had to assess the issue of whether Dr. Picciano, the plaintiff, or, both were proximate causes of the injury. The Trial Court charged the jury on avoidable consequences, superseding/intervening causation, and pre-existing condition (Scafidi charge), but not on comparative negligence. The jury found that Dr. Picciano deviated from the standard of care and increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff. However, a no-cause verdict was entered on behalf of the defendant, as the jury found the increased risk of harm was not a substantial factor in producing the patient’s brain injury under Scafidi.

On appeal the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a new trial stating the lower Court incorrectly charged the jury on the law. The Appellate division found clear error in giving a Scafidi charge. The panel also stated that the Trial Court erred in instructing the jury on both “but-for” causation and “substantial factor” causation in referring to the “preexisting condition/increased risk.” Read the rest »

Posted in: Medical Malpractice


Komlodi v. Picciano, WL 2050758 (N.J. 2014)

By Attorney Michael B. Zerres on October 29, 2014

Komlodi Part 2

The Plaintiff alleged Dr. Picciano breached the duty of care in prescribing a Duragesic patch to Michelle Komlodi, a known abuser of drugs and alcohol who orally ingested the patch, resulting in a severe brain injury. The Trial Court had to assess the issue of whether  Dr. Picciano, the plaintiff, or both were proximate causes of the injury.  The Trial Court charged the jury on avoidable consequences, superseding/intervening causation, and pre-existing condition (Scafidi charge),  but not on comparative negligence. The jury found that Dr. Picciano deviated from the standard of care and increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff.  However, a no-cause verdict was entered on behalf of the defendant, as the jury found the increased risk of harm was not a substantial factor in producing the patient’s brain injury under Scafidi. Read the rest »

Posted in: Medical Malpractice


Komlodi v. Picciano, WL 2050758 (N.J. 2014)

By Attorney Michael B. Zerres on October 28, 2014

Komlodi Part 1

Plaintiff alleged Dr. Picciano breached the duty of care in prescribing a Duragesic patch to Michelle Komlodi, a known abuser of drugs and alcohol who orally ingested the patch, resulting in a severe brain injury. The Trial Court had to assess the issue of whether Dr. Picciano, the plaintiff, or, both were proximate causes of the injury.

The Trial Court charged the jury on avoidable consequences, superseding/intervening causation, and pre-existing condition (Scafidi charge), but not on comparative negligence. The jury found that Dr. Picciano deviated from the standard of care and increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff. However, a no-cause verdict was entered on behalf of the defendant, as the jury found the increased risk of harm was not a substantial factor in producing the patient’s brain injury under Scafidi. Read the rest »

Posted in: Medical Malpractice


I/M/O Suspension or Revocation of the License of Dara, A-1110-11T4, A-4861-T4

By Attorney Michael B. Zerres on March 12, 2014

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 »

Posted in: Medical Malpractice


Estate of Edwards v. Clara Maas Medical Center, ESX-L-4808-11

By Attorney Michael B. Zerres on March 10, 2014

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 »

Posted in: Medical Malpractice


Halper v. St. Barnabas Hospital, ESX-L-5387-10

By Attorney Michael B. Zerres on February 27, 2014

This medical malpractice action arose out of alleged negligent treatment of plaintiff’s decedent while admitted to St. Barnabas Hospital. Both defendant physician and plaintiff’s proffered expert were board certified in Internal Medicine and the subspecialty of Cardiovascular Disease. However, plaintiff’s expert was not board certified in defendant Dr. Nicholas Tullo’s second subspecialty, “Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology.” Dr. Tullo moved for Summary Judgment, seeking dismissal of the Complaint, due to plaintiff’s failure to provide expert testimony rendered by an appropriately-qualified physician. The issue presented in defendant’s Summary Judgment motion was whether, in a medical malpractice action, an additional subspecialty certification held by a defendant doctor bars the use and testimony of a plaintiff’s expert who otherwise shares the defendant doctor’s professional credentials, but lacks certification in the additional subspecialty. Read the rest »

Posted in: Medical Malpractice


Lyons v. Mohr, A-3985-12T3

By Attorney Michael B. Zerres on February 26, 2014

Plaintiff brought this medical malpractice action as a result of complications suffered following a hysterectomy. Plaintiff attempted to amend her Complaint to include an additional defendant physician, Daniel H. Tobias, M.D. The trial court entered an interlocutory Order denying plaintiff’s attempt to amend her Complaint, finding that the two-year statute of limitations had expired and plaintiff had not demonstrated at an evidentiary hearing that principles of equitable tolling justified an extension of the two-year statute of limitations.

Plaintiffs were then granted leave to appeal the trial court’s order. The Appellate Division, in a decision dated November 27, 2013, reversed the trial court’s order, finding that under the distinctive circumstances of the case, principles of equitable tolling warrant the inclusion of Doctor Tobias as a co-defendant. The Court found that these circumstances included: faulty medical recordkeeping that omitted Dr. Tobias from the operative report as one of the doctors who performed surgery on plaintiff; the lead surgeon’s failure to disclose Dr. Tobias’ involvement to the plaintiff when she consulted him about post-surgical complications; and incomplete, potentially misleading interrogatory responses by co-defendants which masked Dr. Tobias’ involvement. As plaintiff and her attorneys acted reasonably under the circumstances, and had scant reason to believe that another surgeon, Dr. Tobias, participated in the operation, equitable principles justified tolling the two-year statute of limitations. Read the rest »

Posted in: Medical Malpractice


Chatham: (973) 635-5400     Jersey City: (201) 963-4711     Sea Girt: (732) 758-6333     North Bergen: (201) 861-7757

New Jersey Medical Malpractice Attorney Disclaimer: The New Jersey medical malpractice, accident, injury, serious accident, or other personal injury legal information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice, nor the formation of a lawyer or attorney client relationship. Any results set forth herein are based upon the facts of that particular case and do not represent a promise or guarantee. Please contact a New Jersey Personal Injury Attorney or Medical Malpractice Lawyer for a consultation on your particular medical malpractice matter. This web site is not intended to solicit clients for matters outside of the state of New Jersey.

© 2014 Super Lawyers®, Super Lawyers is a registered trademark of Thomson Reuters.

Copyright © 2012 Blume Goldfaden Berkowitz Donnelly Fried & Forte, Chatham, NJ - All rights reserved. Attorneys serving all New Jersey Counties and Communities.