.

Case Law Alerts

Need for Competent Physician Testimony to Establish Proximate Cause in Nursing Malpractice Matters

Estate of Jacobs by Jacobs v. Princeton Med. Ctr., No. A-5092-18, 2021 WL 4824081 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 18, 2021)

January 3, 2022

by Nataliana A. Guida

The plaintiff argued that her decedent developed pressure sores to her sacrum and heels at the defendant hospital, which worsened there, and later at nursing facilities, causing her pain and suffering and contributing to her death the following year at age 90. 

In support of her case, the plaintiff served an expert report from B. Darlington, RN, who opined that nurses at the defendant hospital and subsequent nursing home facilities deviated from accepted standards of nursing care in failing to plan and implement interventions for the prevention and treatment of pressure sores. 

The plaintiff also offered the testimony of A. Karp, M.D., a Board Certified Internist and Geriatrician, to opine as to the injuries caused or exacerbated by the defendants. However, at his deposition, Dr. Karp conceded that he was never provided with a copy of Nurse Darlington’s report or deposition testimony and was not even aware of what she claimed were the deviations from the standard of care. 

The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment, holding that Dr. Karp was unable as a matter of law to establish causation since he did not even read Nurse Darlington’s report or deposition testimony and as a physician cannot opine as to the standard of care of a nurse. 

The Appellate Division affirmed, reiterating that Dr. Karp did not have knowledge of Nurse Darlington’s allegations of deviations and, therefore, could not possibly link any specific deviation to the decedent’s injury or death. Additionally, the Appellate Division found no factual support in the record which would allow Dr. Karp to opine that the pressure wound either caused the decedent pain or contributed to her death. 

This decision highlights the importance of understanding the qualification requirements for the issuance of standard of care and causation opinions amongst different licensed professionals. 

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.