Medical Malpractice Suit Dismissed for Inadequate Affidavit of Merit in Wrongful Death Following Kidney Biopsy
Sovelove v. Shirazi, A-1540-23, Jun. 17, 2025
The decedent had undergone an elective kidney biopsy and suffered a large retroperitoneal bleed, resulting in her death. The plaintiff, individually and as the estate executor, appealed the trial court’s dismissal of her medical malpractice complaint based on the failure to provide a sufficient affidavit of merit.
The defendant doctor argued that the affidavit of merit doctor did not share the same specialty or subspecialty; therefore, the affidavit of merit was non-compliant. The trial court found that the affidavit of merit was insufficient. The plaintiff argued there was no distinction in the level of expertise between the doctors’ certifications.
The court noted that the defendant specialized in internal medicine and subspecialized in pulmonology and critical care medicine, while the affidavit of merit affiant specialized in general and vascular surgery with a subspecialty in surgical critical care. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s contention that the expert satisfied the requirements of the affidavit of merit statute, because of his subspecialty in surgical critical care, were unpersuasive.
Appellate Court Revives Nursing Home Rights Claim, Rejects Limitation to Current Residents Under NHA
Salters v. South Mountain Rehab. Ctr., LLC., A-1790-23, Jun. 17, 2025
The plaintiff fell in his room at the defendants’ nursing facility. Because the plaintiff was taken to the hospital the next morning, September 16, 2019, he was discharged from the nursing facility that day. The plaintiff was re-admitted to the nursing facility for rehabilitation after hip surgery. On November 9, 2019, he was discharged from the defendants’ nursing facility and subsequently lived with his family.
In 2020, the decedent filed suit against the defendants for corporate and facility negligence and violation of his rights under the New Jersey Nursing Home Responsibilities and Rights of Residents Act (NHA).
After the plaintiff died in 2023, his son was permitted to substitute as plaintiff.
The trial court found that the estate could not pursue a claim for violation of the NHA because the decedent was not a resident of the defendants’ facility when he filed his complaint. The decedent’s estate appealed an order an granting the defendants’ summary judgment motions.
The appellate court disagreed with trial judge’s conclusion that the decedent was not a “person” under the NHA and noted that restricting NHA claims to current residents would frustrate the act’s remedial intent.
The Quarterly Dose – August 2025, 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. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.
