.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

TOP 10 DEVELOPMENTS IN NEW JERSEY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2024

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2024

December 1, 2024

by Kiara K. Hartwell

1.    The Appellate Division addresses permanent partial vs. total disability.
Hughes v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. and State of N.J. Second Inj. Fund, No. A-1188-22 (January 30, 2024)

The Appellate Division affirmed the workers’ compensation order for an increase in the petitioner’s permanency award but denied his claim that he was permanently and totally disabled. The petitioner suffered a cardiac injury on July 14, 2004. He filed a claim, and after a trial in which he asserted he was 100% disabled, a workers’ compensation judge found he was 33 1/3% disabled. The petitioner then re-opened his claim and joined the Second Injury Fund into the litigation. The only issue at trial was whether there was any increase in permanent disability as a result of the July 14, 2024, cardiac event. After trial, which included testimony from the petitioner and experts for both sides, and review of medical records, the judge found the petitioner’s disability increased to 45% but that he was not totally disabled. The petitioner appealed, arguing he should have been found 100% disabled. The Appellate Division noted the judge thoroughly laid out the evidence and reasoning for his decision. While the petitioner argued the judge should have given more weight to his expert’s opinion, the judge explained his reasons for rejecting same. 

2.    The Appellate Division addresses pro se claim for medical and temporary benefits.
Bello v. United Panam Financial Corp., No. A-2986-21 (March 6, 2024)

A pro se petitioner appealed from a workers’ compensation order finding that his injuries were not causally related to his employment. The petitioner filed two claims, both seeking medical and temporary benefits from the respondent. He testified he had to use his own car for work and had it serviced at Holman Cadillac, noting he noticed a chemical order in his car after it was serviced. A week later, he turned on the air conditioner and noticed a stronger odor. He turned it off, stopped to see a client and then stopped at a restaurant to rinse his mouth, at which point he started coughing up blood. The petitioner hired Eagle Industrial Hygiene Associates to test the air quality in his car. In their report, they noted they detected an odor after operating the air conditioner for 1.5 hours and that the products used for his car included some dangerous components. The petitioner retained Dr. Lawrence Guzzardi as his expert, who acknowledged he was not treating patients, had not been affiliated with any hospital since 2016 and most of his income came from his real estate business. Dr. Guzzardi opined the petitioner’s injuries were due to exposure to the chemicals. In response, the respondent offered up the testimony of Dr. Howard Kipen (toxicologist) and Dr. Samuel Kahnowitz (pulmonologist), both of whom found no causal link between his symptoms and the alleged exposure. Afterwards, the judge issued an extensive written decision, finding the respondent’s experts were more credible and, thus, the petitioner failed to establish causation. The Appellate Division found no basis to disturb the judge’s decision, especially as both of the respondent’s experts provided the reasons for their conclusions.

3.    The Appellate Division finds no requirement that a lien had to be paid immediately following settlement with a third-party tortfeasor under N.J.S.A. 34:15-40.
N.J. Transit Corp. v. Joseph, No. A-1194-22 (March 19, 2024)

The Appellate Division vacated and remanded a trial court order denying New Jersey Transit’s application for satisfaction of its workers’ compensation lien as premature after the third-party settlement. The petitioner was injured while working for New Jersey Transit and filed workers’ compensation and third-party cases. While the workers’ compensation case was pending, the petitioner settled with his UM carrier, and those funds were disbursed to him. New Jersey Transit filed a verified complaint and order to show cause, seeking reimbursement of its lien. The trial court denied their application as premature, without hearing oral arguments. The Appellate Division reviewed N.J.S.A. 34:15-40, noting there was no mention of a timeline for satisfying an unperfected lien. In addition, there was no mention of a requirement that a lien had to be paid immediately following settlement with a third-party tortfeasor; instead, it could not be fully satisfied until the workers’ compensation case was finalized and the employer’s liability determined. The case was remanded to the trial court to ensure the lien was protected until the workers’ compensation case was resolved.
 
4.    The Appellate Division affirms dismissal of a workers’ compensation claim as outside the scope of employment. 
Latshaw v. Lakewood Twp. Police Dep’t, No. A-3702-21 (March 25, 2024)

The petitioner was working for the employer as a dispatcher, and while on her meal break in October 2018, she was rear-ended. She filed a workers’ compensation claim, and the employer opposed, arguing she was injured outside the scope of her employment. The petitioner testified that she had employer-approved breaks, including for lunch, and that she was paid for that time, even if she left the premises. She had driven to a restaurant for lunch and was injured on her way back to the station. The employer moved to dismiss her claim as the accident occurred while on a personal errand, and the judge granted same. The Appellate Division referenced the Supreme Court decision in Keim v. Above All Termite & Pest Control, 256 N.J. 47 (2023). Applicable case law and statute were reviewed in defining employment and exceptions, including the premises rule, special mission rule, paid travel time rule and authorized vehicle rule. In going through these exceptions, the Appellate Division emphasized that the petitioner was not covered under any of these exceptions and noted the petitioner’s paid status during her break did not mandate workers’ compensation coverage. The Division affirmed dismissal of the claim.

5.    The Appellate Division addresses compensability for a circumstance involving mandatory reporting by the employer.
Terhune v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., No. A-3206-22 (May 8, 2024)

The petitioner worked for the employer, and on December 14, 2013, reported for mandatory snow duty. As a part of same, he had to stay at an assigned Marriot Hotel for 12 hours and work the other 12 hours. He was compensated for the entire 24-hour shift. The petitioner had a pre-existing back injury, requiring light exercise. After using the hotel gym, he slipped and landed on his back as he was entering the hotel pool. The incident was reported, and the petitioner was taken to the hospital. Although the respondent denied the claim, arguing it did not arise out of his employment, the judge found the employer required the petitioner to remain at the hotel and all expenses were paid by the employer. The judge found the case compensable and entered a final decision and judgment for 75% permanent disability. The Appellate Division rejected the employer’s appeal consistent with the judge’s reasoning.

6.    The Appellate Division reviews the Workers’ Compensation Act bar.
Barrett v. Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., No. A-3441-22 (June 13, 2024)

The Appellate Division reversed and remanded the trial court’s order granting the employer’s summary judgment motion. The petitioner finished her overnight shift, clocked out, and accompanied her son in the respondent’s emergency room. Her son was discharged about three-and-a-half hours later. While walking to her son’s car in the garage, the petitioner tripped and fell. She filed a case against the employer, who filed a summary judgment motion. The judge granted the motion, noting the Workers’ Compensation Act barred her from suing the respondent as she never left the premises after her shift ended. The Appellate Division reversed and vacated the order, noting the petitioner was not in the course of and did not arise out of her employment when the incident occurred.

7.    The Appellate Division addresses coverage in a workers’ compensation and third-party setting.
Tejada v. 74 Industries, Inc., et al., No. A-2643-21 (July 12, 2024)

The insurance carrier issued a standard workers’ compensation and employers liability policy to the respondent. The petitioner was injured at work and filed a workers’ compensation claim, which was resolved through an order approving settlement with dismissal (Section 20). The petitioner also filed a complaint for intentional torts against the respondent, who, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against their insurance carrier, seeking coverage. At the time of the workers’ compensation settlement, there was no reference to the petitioner’s complaint in the Law Division. The petitioner’s complaint alleged intentional wrongs within the exception of the workers’ compensation bar. The respondent then tendered the complaint to their carrier for defense and indemnification, which the carrier declined. The judge granted the insurance carrier’s motion, noting its policy clearly excluded intentional wrongs from coverage. The Appellate Division confirmed the exclusion and policy language were unambiguous in excluding coverage for intentional wrongs and affirmed. 

8.    The Appellate Division analyzes the special employer rule.
Urena v. A&D Freight Logistics, LLC, et al., No. A-2302-21 (July 29, 2024)

Hartford Underwriters Insurance appealed from a February 15, 2022, order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of coverage. A&D Freight cross-appealed from the January 19, 2022, and February 15, 2022, orders, which found it was liable for dependency benefits as the decedent’s employer. The underlying claim resulted from a fatal accident involving the decedent on March 31, 2017. The decedent was the owner-operator of Triple Star Transport, LLC and was assigned to transport materials by A&D Container Logistics and A&D Freight. Triple Star was insured by Hartford; A&D Container was insured by New Jersey Casualty Insurance Company (NJCIC); and A&D Freight was insured by New Jersey Property Liability Insurance Guarantee Association (NJPLIGA). The petitioner (decedent’s wife) filed dependency claims against all three companies and their insurers, which were later amended to include NJM as A&D Container’s insurer. After trial, the judge found Hartford did not cancel its policy per the statute and that all three companies were liable to pay dependency benefits under the theory of dual employment. The Appellate Division found Hartford failed to provide proof that there was personal knowledge of the notice of cancellation being sent to the employer. As such, Hartford failed to meet its burden of proper cancellation. As for the special employer argument, the Appellate Division rejected same, noting the three factors to establish the special employee relationship was present (contract of hire, work essentially that of a special employer and right to control). As such, the Appellate Division affirmed the order denying Hartford’s motion to dismiss for lack of coverage and finding A&D Freight liable for dependency benefits as the decedent’s special employer.

9.    The Appellate Division reviews the intentional wrong exception.
Busby v. Seabrook Bros. & Sons, No. A-1925-21 (August 5, 2024)

The petitioner began working for the employer in January 2017. In April 2017, he injured his right hand while cleaning a commercial mixing machine. The petitioner filed a personal injury action against the respondent, alleging substantial certainty of harm due to removal of the machine’s guard and failure to train the petitioner. The employer moved for summary judgment. After oral arguments, the judge rendered an oral opinion granting the motion. The court found the employer did not engage in any deliberate acts that led to the petitioner’s injury and that their failure to train and to have lockout procedures in place were more akin to negligence. There was also a lack of any prior injuries on Line 9. The Appellate Division affirmed, noting there was no intentional or fraudulent deception by the employer and that the petitioner was injured when Line 9 was unexpectedly activated. 

10.    S2822/A3986 signed into law.

On August 22, 2024, Acting Governor Nicholas Scutari signed S2822/A3986 into law. Under R.S.34:15-64, the attorney fee cap in workers’ compensation cases were at 20%. This bill amends the statute to raise the attorney fee cap in workers’ compensation cases to 25%. This also impacts fees on motions for medical/temporary benefits as well as permanency awards. The rationale behind the amendment was that the 20% fee cap did not account for the additional and increasing duties of workers’ compensation attorneys since the cap was established in 1927. This amendment is effective immediately and applies to all claims pending on or after enactment of the bill. As such, any fees awarded on motions and permanency awards may be subject to this increased fee cap as of August 22, 2024. However, the workers’ compensation judges still have discretion on all fees. 

 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Portrait of Thomas Glassman. Text: Joining our Cincinnati Office as a Shareholder in the Casualty Department

News

Marshall Dennehey Adds Shareholder Thomas F. Glassman in Cincinnati, Expands Casualty Practice in Ohio and Kentucky

Thought Leadership

Perlmutter Provides Predictability for Punitive Damages Claims in Florida

In a much anticipated decision, the Florida Supreme Court provided clarity for the standards of proof for punitive damages claims in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026). Litigants and trial judges must be mindful of the standards laid out by the Court. And, defense practitioners must be prepared to alter their strategies to defend against such claims. Perlmutter came to the Court from the Fourth District, based on conflict jurisdiction with decisions from the Second and Fifth District and on certification of a question of great public importance as to the standard of proof for punitive damages claims at the pleading stage. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Perlmutter, 376 So. 3d 24, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). In the underlying case, the Fourth District made two conclusions. First, it held that a “trial court must consider the evidentiary showing by all parties at the hearing on the motion to amend, that is, evidence ‘in the record’ and evidence ‘proffered by the claimant.’”  376 So. 3d at 33. Second, the Fourth held that it “interpreted section 768.72(1) and (2) to require the trial court to make a preliminary determination of whether a reasonable jury, viewing the totality of proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the movant, could find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted.  Id. at 34 (underscoring in the original). In making these conclusions, the court cautioned trial courts that the “preliminary determination” analysis did not entitle the trial court to decide whether the evidence is clear and convincing and noted that the trial court should not weigh evidence and should not determine witness credibility. Id. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and answered the certified question in the negative. It quashed the decision below and remanded the case for application of the following standards: The trial court should consider only the evidence identified or proffered by the claimant; it should not entertain an evidentiary counter-submission from the opponent. The trial court should consider whether a reasonable person could conclude based on the claimant’s evidence, that the defendant committed “intentional misconduct” or “gross negligence” as defined in section 768.72(2) or section 768.72(3). The trial court must review the request for punitive damages in the context of the underlying claims. The trial court should not apply the clear and convincing standard of proof in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at the pleading stage. The trial court does not act as a fact-finder; the trial court must not weigh the claimant’s evidence—it cannot decide the truth of the matter. The trial court must consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but the allegations in the proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence. Perlmutter, SC2024-0058 at 13-15 (emphasis added). In explaining these standards, the Court interpreted the text of the statute and compared it to a related statute which governs punitive damages in the nursing home context. The nursing home statute expressly calls for evidentiary submissions by “the parties” and expressly tells the trial court to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant could satisfy the “clear and convincing evidence” standard at trial. Id. at 17-18 (comparing the text of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, with section 400.0237, Florida Statutes). Without that express language in section 768.72, the statute could not be applied in the same manner. With these standards specially delineated for the trial courts, the Court is “confident that its interpretation of section 768.72(1) will not frustrate the effectiveness of the statute in accomplishing the Legislature’s textually evident purposes.” Id.  at 22 (cleaned up). This remains to be seen. While Perlmutter provides predictability and clarity for trial courts when reviewing the evidentiary submissions in support of a punitive damages claim, the decision will not likely impact the numbers of punitive damages motions filed. Rather, these new parameters will change the way claims are defended, reminiscent of a time when rulings on punitive damages were only subject to certiorari review and appellate courts were limited in reviewing procedural errors. This decision will likely deflate the level-playing field that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(G) addressed by allowing appeals of orders granting and denying punitive damages amendments. Further, Perlmutter may have impliedly created a call to action for the Legislature to amend section 768.72(1) in the same manner it amended section 400.0237 to allow the courts to analyze “admissible evidence submitted by the parties” and determine at a hearing whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant at trial would be able to demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that the recovery of punitive damages is warranted. Until then, defendants must adjust their strategies. To adapt to these new standards, defense practitioners will need to tailor their strategy for defending punitive damages claims since they can no longer submit a counter-proffer or urge a court to apply the clear and convincing standard at the pleading phase. Instead, defendants will need to attack the deficiencies in the claimant’s pleadings and proffer. If the trial court fails to serve as a gatekeeper, and does not apply the above standards, then defendants can pursue an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(G). If a nonfinal appeal is taken, then defendants should move to stay any intrusive financial discovery while the appellate court analyzes the issues on appeal. Finally, defendants should utilize Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to serve as a screening device to allow the trial court to analyze all evidence and prevent nonmeritorious punitive damages claims from proceeding to a jury.

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

Thought Leadership

Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA

In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested. In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are. Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted. The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.”  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA. 

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Self-Referral Prohibition Does Not Cover Prescriptions Written by Physicians with Ownership Interests in Dispensing Pharmacies

700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (State Workers’ Insurance Fund); Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 MAP 2024; decided June 16, 2026; by Justice Mundy.   In this case, Drs. Miteswar Purewal and Shailen Jalali, treating physicians for workers’ compensation claimants, wrote prescriptions for various medications that were filled by 700 Pharmacy. The worker’s compensation insurer refused to pay for the prescriptions on the basis that they were illegal self-referrals under the Act. 700 Pharmacy subsequently filed fee review applications with The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Review Office. At a fee review hearing, both physicians stipulated they had a financial interest in the pharmacy.  The physicians argued that the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act does not bar self-referrals on prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services, since the provision does not specifically identify prescription drugs. The Fee Review Hearing Officer rejected this argument and found that prescriptions for medications are prohibited under the “goods or services” language included in the provision. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and the court affirmed, agreeing with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of “goods and services” as encompassing prescriptions. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Commonwealth Court, holding that the term “goods and services” in the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act did not include prescriptions. According to the Court, “goods and services” was not a catch-all, but simply explanatory as to the eight enumerated categories in the provision. The provision (Section 306(f.1)(3)(iii)) reads, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for a provider to refer a person for laboratory, physical therapy, rehabilitation, chiropractic, radiation oncology, psychometric, home infusion therapy  or diagnostic imaging, goods or services pursuant to this section if the provider has a financial interest with the person or in the entity that receives the referral. The Court said that if the General Assembly wanted to specifically include prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services in the Anti-Referral Provision, they would have done so. They pointed out that prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services were included by the legislature in Section 306 (f.1)(3)(vi) of the Act as to reimbursement, and claimed that their omission from the Anti-Referral Provision supports the conclusion that those services are not included in the Anti-Referral Provision’s self-referral prohibition.

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict.