.

Legal Updates for New Jersey Public Entity & Civil Rights

Discovery Rule Applied to Permit Notice of Tort Claim Two Years After Alleged Malpractice

Presented by the Public Entity & Civil Rights Litigation Practice Group

March 25, 2021

by Matthew J. Behr

In Talian v. Peck, Docket No. A-2357-19, the New Jersey Appellate Court permitted a plaintiff to file a notice of a tort claim pursuant to the Tort Claims Act two years after the alleged malpractice occurred.

In September 2017, the plaintiff was admitted to Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital and diagnosed with acute right leg cellulitis. Dr. Peck performed a procedure to treat that condition. While at the hospital, the plaintiff was also diagnosed with colonic obstruction and had surgery. Over the next two years, the plaintiff had almost continuous treatment from various wound care centers and rehabilitation facilities due to these two medical conditions and treatment.

In July 2019, the plaintiff was having lunch with a friend who was a doctor. During the lunch, the plaintiff described his medical problems that had developed after his stay in the hospital, and his doctor friend was concerned about the medical treatment and care provided by Dr. Peck. The plaintiff then did his own research and discovered that Dr. Peck did not follow the standard diagnostic approach for treatment of his condition. After the plaintiff retained an attorney, a notice of tort claim was served against the public entity, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, and its public employee, Dr. Peck.

The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the hospital’s and Dr. Peck’s motion to dismiss for failure to file a timely notice of tort claim. The Division explained the Tort Claims Act and the notice requirement (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8) to file a tort claims notice within 90 days of accrual of the cause of action: The date of accrual is generally the date of the incident on which the negligent act or omission took place. An exception to this standard is the discovery rule, which applies “where the victim either is unaware that he (or she) has been injured, or although aware of an injury, does not know that a third person is responsible.” Id. at *9 (quoting Beauchamp v. Amadio, 164 N.J. 111, 117-19 (2000)).

Prior to having lunch with his friend in July 2019, the plaintiff was never alerted that Dr. Peck may be at fault for his continual complications. The plaintiff reasonably believed that his complications were as a result of his own health issue, rather than potential malpractice of Dr. Peck. As a result, the Appellate Division tolled the accrual date by operation of the discovery rule; therefore, the plaintiff was not required to file a notice of motion to permit a late notice of claim since the notice of tort claim was timely because the plaintiff was not aware that a third person was responsible for his injuries.

The Tort Claims Act is a powerful defense for public entities and public employees; in particular, a claimant’s filing requirement to file within 90 days of an incident. It is important to consult an attorney regarding all available defenses under the Tort Claims Act if your public entity or your public employee has been sued. Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss any issue under the Tort Claims Act. I can be reached at 856-414-6048 or you can email me at mjbehr@mdwcg.com.

 

The material in this law alert has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. 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 tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved.

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.