Health Care

The plaintiff appealed two orders entered by different judges that dismissed his pleadings against an endodontist where he alleged negligence, assault and battery. The complaint asserted the defendant provided nitrous oxide to the plaintiff beyond what was necessary for medical treatment, or for no medical purpose at all, from 2013 to 2017, which allegedly caused the plaintiff to become addicted to nitrous oxide. The trial judge granted the defendant’s Rule 4:6-2(e) motion dismissing the plaintiff’s first and second amended complaints and judicially estopping the plaintiff from bringing a medical negligence claim, finding “no doctor-patient relationship existed.” The plaintiff then filed a third amended complaint, which prompted another Rule 4:6-2(e) motion from the defendant, which was also granted.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued the lower court judge incorrectly applied the judicial estoppel doctrine to dismiss his medical negligence claims because New Jersey pleading rules allow a plaintiff to plead inconsistent theories. The Appellate Division agreed and reversed the trial court’s order. The Appellate Division explained there is no prior or subsequent litigation. Rather, it is one case involving several dismissals without prejudice and subject to the re-filing of pleadings. Because the plaintiff did not successfully assert a position in a prior litigation and later asserted a contrary position in a subsequent litigation—as required for the judge to apply judicial estoppel—the doctrine is inapplicable. The Appellate Division also agreed with the plaintiff that he had sufficiently pled medical negligence.

There are two implications as a result of this decision. First, the Appellate Division explained the judicial estoppel doctrine is an extraordinary remedy only properly invoked by the court “when a party’s inconsistent behavior will otherwise result in a miscarriage of justice.” Second, the medical negligence pleadings were enough to state a claim because the defendant’s actions allegedly involved medical treatment and related to actual medical services the defendant may have rendered.

 

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}