Health Care

David Tomeo, Victoria Pepe and paralegal Karen Kankula (all of Roseland, NJ) obtained a dismissal in the Superior Court of New Jersey on personal jurisdiction grounds of a multi-count complaint brought by a New Jersey-based medical laboratory against our client, an Arizona company which provides both medical services and health insurance to Arizona residents. The plaintiff argued that our client was amenable to suit in this state, asserting that our client had business interactions with the laboratory in New Jersey. In opposition, we were able to establish that not only was such assertion untrue, but also that any claims sent by the plaintiff to our client for testing services would have been processed in Arizona and that our client did not have any contacts—much less the constitutionally mandated minimum contacts— necessary for personal jurisdiction in New Jersey. In addition, finding that the plaintiff did not conduct any due diligence before filing suit, and did not make any attempt to take jurisdictional discovery while the motion was pending, the court dismissed the action with prejudice in New Jersey, despite the plaintiff’s argument that a dismissal without prejudice was appropriate, thus leaving to the courts of Arizona the question of whether such a dismissal has preclusive effect in any suit brought there under these facts.

Lynne Nahmani and Jessica Wachstein (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) successfully defended a chiropractor with a directed verdict on informed consent and a no cause, 7-0, on standard of care. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was negligent in failing to obtain an MRI before adjusting the lumbar spine with a differential diagnosis, which included a herniated or bulging disc. The plaintiff claimed increased risk of harm for foot drop, surgery, pain and suffering, and alteration in work and life enjoyment.

Suzanne Utke (Philadelphia, PA) won a summary judgment motion in a failure to diagnose breast cancer case on behalf of an imaging company. The plaintiff had four mammograms between July 2011 and January 2015, all of which read as negative for abnormalities by four radiologists, who were all named defendants and were alleged to be employed by the insured imaging company. In October 2015, after a fall that led to an urgent care visit and a MRI, a metastatic lesion was seen on the plaintiff’s hip. She was subsequently diagnosed with Stage IV metastatic breast cancer. Suit was filed for a missed diagnosis of breast lesions allegedly appearing on each of the four prior mammograms. The imaging company was named for theories of corporate and vicarious liability. After multiple mergers, acquisitions, and contractual relationships with all of the corporate co-defendants, the non-involvement of the imaging company was hotly contested and a stipulated dismissal could not be secured. After complex discovery, the motion for summary judgment was finally granted, with prejudice, for our client.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

---

 

_{The Quarterly Dose – May 2024, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.}