Appellate Division Maintains Kind-for-Kind, Credential Equivalency Requirement Under Affidavit of Merit Statute
Wiggins v. Hackensack Meridian Health, 478 N.J. Super. 355 (App. Div. 2024)
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, Alok Goyal, M.D., prescribed tramadol to the decedent for pain associated with a medical condition. One month later, a different doctor prescribed allopurinol (a medication to treat high uric acid levels) to the decedent. The plaintiffs asserted that the decedent suffered an allergic reaction from either medication or a combination of the two and was subsequently treated for Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (a rare disorder most commonly caused by an adverse drug reaction).
Four years later, the decedent was treated for a blood clot at Hackensack Meridian Health d/b/a JFK University Medical Center. She was discharged and, once again, prescribed allopurinol by Dr. Goyal. The decedent was later readmitted to JFK and treated for Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. Soon thereafter, she died from cardiopulmonary arrest attributed to multiple organ failure, bacteremia and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.
The plaintiffs’ complaint described Dr. Goyal as a physician who specialized in internal medicine and gastroenterology, which he affirmed in his answer to the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs served an Affidavit of Merit (AOM) against the defendant Stella Jone Fitzgibbons, M.D., FACP (Fellow of the American College of Physicians), FHM (Fellow in Hospital Medicine). Dr. Fitzgibbons certified that she was Board Certified in internal medicine (but not in gastroenterology).
After extensive motion practice on the issue, the trial court held, relying on Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377 (2011), that Dr. Fitzgibbons’ AOM was sufficient because she specialized in internal medicine—one of the two fields of Dr. Goyal’s expertise.
On appeal, the Appellate Division held that the trial court erred in finding the plaintiffs met the kind-for-kind specialty requirement when they only served an AOM from an internal medicine physician as to Dr. Goyal—a Board Certified physician in two specialties. The Appellate Division distinguished Buck from the circumstances in the instant case, finding that the instant case concerned the kind of AOM a plaintiff needed to serve when a defendant physician specializes in two practice areas and is treating the plaintiff in both of those capacities.
Because Dr. Fitzgibbons was a lesser-qualified doctor than Dr. Goyal, the court found that the submission of an AOM from solely Dr. Fitzgibbons would contravene the purpose of the Act. The court held, “[a] plaintiff cannot choose the specialty that the defendant physician was practicing when treating the patient; the plaintiff must respond to the information provided by the doctor in the answer.” As a result, the court determined that the complaint should have been dismissed by the trial court on this basis alone.
The Quarterly Dose – August 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.
