Gonzalez v. Agarwal Revisited
One other noteworthy point about Gonzalez v. Agarwal (discussed below re: ER Care) is that the Court permitted that plaintiff’s attorney to question the accuracy of Dr. Agarwal’s office records, suggesting that they may have been re-copied with certain of the patient’s relevant complaints removed. While there was no direct evidence that the doctor’s records were changed, there was enough circumstantial evidence (for example, the testimony of witnesses that complaints about headaches were made by Ms. Gonzalaez to Dr. Agarwal) to permit the issue to be raised, with the Court stating “The mere fact that ‘evidence is shrouded with unsavory implications is no reason for exclusion when it is a significant part of the proof,’” quoting from State v. west 29 NJ 327, 335 (1959) So, it seems that if there is a legitimate basis to question the veracity of a doctor or hospital’s records, it ought to be permitted.
- De Laroche v. Advanced Laparoscopic Association et al. (A-5403-1474) Decided 2/28/2017
- Clarification on the Statute of Limitations for “Survival” Claims – Warren v. Muenzen, 448 N.J. Super. 52, (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016) December 7, 2016)
- Settling Defendant Charge Need Not Always Be Given – Hernandez v. Chekenian, No. L-11038 14, 2016 WL 6024008, (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. July 15, 2016)
- Vascular Surgeon Not Qualified to Testify Against Family Practitioner Who Performed a Vascular Procedure – Afonso v. Bejjani – A-1623-15T4
- Federally Qualified Health Center Entitled to New Jersey’s Cap on Charitable Immunity for Hospitals – S.M. v. United States of America – CA No. 13-5702, USDC – DNJ