THE ESTATE OF JON LEON WATSON et al v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY et al
Filing
76
OPINION. Signed by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez on 2/27/2018. (dmr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
THE ESTATE OF JON LEON WATSON :
by and through its Administrator ad
Prosequendum, HELEN RAY LLOYD, :
and HELEN RAY LLOYD, in her own
right,
:
Plaintiffs,
Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez
Civil Action No. 16-6578
:
v.
OPINION
:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
This matter is before the Court on motion for summary judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 by Defendant CFG Health Systems, LLC
(“CFG”). CFG seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s medical malpractice/
professional negligence claims for failure to timely provide an Affidavit of
Merit as required by N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A-29. The Court has reviewed
the submissions and decides the matter based on the briefs pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons stated here, Defendant CFG’s motion
will be granted.
Background
CFG provided health services at Cumberland County Jail when Jon
Leon Watson was admitted as an inmate. On June 3, 2016, Watson was
found hanging in his cell; he had committed suicide.
1
Summary Judgment Standard
“Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material
fact and if, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Pearson
v. Component Tech. Corp., 247 F.3d 471, 482 n.1 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 56
(a). Thus, the Court will enter summary judgment in favor of a movant who
shows that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and supports the
showing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact by “citing to
particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions,
documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations,
stipulations . . . admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c)(1)(A).
An issue is “genuine” if supported by evidence such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict in the nonmoving party’s favor. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is “material” if, under
the governing substantive law, a dispute about the fact might affect the
outcome of the suit. Id. In determining whether a genuine issue of material
fact exists, the court must view the facts and all reasonable inferences
2
drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
Initially, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has met this burden, the
nonmoving party must identify, by affidavits or otherwise, specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.; Maidenbaum v. Bally’s
Park Place, Inc., 870 F. Supp. 1254, 1258 (D.N.J. 1994). Thus, to withstand
a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party
must identify specific facts and affirmative evidence that contradict those
offered by the moving party. Andersen, 477 U.S. at 256-57. “A nonmoving
party may not ‘rest upon mere allegations, general denials or . . . vague
statements . . . .’” Trap Rock Indus., Inc. v. Local 825, Int’l Union of
Operating Eng’rs, 982 F.2d 884, 890 (3d Cir. 1992) (quoting Quiroga v.
Hasbro, Inc., 934 F.2d 497, 500 (3d Cir. 1991)). Indeed,
the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of
summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and
upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. That is, the movant can support the assertion that
a fact cannot be genuinely disputed by showing that “an adverse party
3
cannot produce admissible evidence to support the [alleged dispute of]
fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).
In deciding the merits of a party’s motion for summary judgment, the
court’s role is not to evaluate the evidence and decide the truth of the
matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). Credibility
determinations are the province of the factfinder. Big Apple BMW, Inc. v.
BMW of N. Am., Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir. 1992).
Discussion
New Jersey’s Affidavit of Merit Statute was enacted “‘as part of a tort
reform package designed to strike a fair balance between preserving a
person’s right to sue and controlling nuisance suits.’” Nuveen Mun. Trust v.
Withumsmith Brown, P.C., 692 F.3d 283, 290 (3d Cir. 2012)
(quoting Natale v. Camden Cty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 579 (3d Cir.
2003)). The Affidavit of Merit Statute requires:
[i]n any action for damages for personal injuries, wrongful
death or property damage resulting from an alleged act of
malpractice or negligence by a licensed person in his profession
or occupation, the plaintiff shall, within 60 days following the
date of filing of the answer to the complaint by the defendant,
provide each defendant with an affidavit of an appropriate
licensed person [stating] that there exists a reasonable
probability that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or
exhibited in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject
of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional or
4
occupational standards or treatment practices. The court may
grant no more than on additional period, not to exceed 60 days,
to file the affidavit pursuant to this section, upon a finding of
good cause.
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A–27. These two 60 day periods must run
consecutively, and they are not to exceed 120 days total from the date the
defendant’s answer is filed. Douglass v. Obade, 819 A.2d 445, 446 (N.J.
Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003) (The “end of the line . . . the drop-dead date, is
120 days.”).
“The penalty for not following the [Affidavit of Merit] Statute is
severe. Absent a showing of one of four limited exceptions, the failure to file
the affidavit ‘shall be deemed a failure to state a cause of action.’” Nuveen,
at 290–91 (quoting N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A–29). The four limited
exceptions are: (i) where the defendant has failed to provide the plaintiff
requested medical information, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A-28; (ii) a narrow
class of cases where professional negligence can be demonstrated as a
matter of “common knowledge,” Hubbard v. Reed, 774 A.2d 495, 501 (N.J.
2001) (finding that layperson could find professional negligence absent
affidavit of merit where dentist pulled the wrong tooth); (iii) where the
plaintiff has substantially complied with the affidavit-of-merit
requirement, Cornblatt v. Barow, 708 A.2d 401, 411-12 (N.J. 1998); or (iv)
where the plaintiff can show “extraordinary circumstances” that warrant
5
equitable relief, Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 836 A.2d 779,
782-83 (N.J. 2003). See also Nuveen, 692 F.3d at 291 n.3.
In this case, CFG filed its Answer invoking the protection of New
Jersey’s Affidavit of Merit Statute regarding any medical malpractice or
professional negligence claims on February 3, 2017. [Doc. 21.] Plaintiff did
not file a timely Affidavit of Merit. Both the 60-day deadline to do so, April
4, 2017, and an extended 60 days upon a showing of good cause, of June 3,
2017, passed before the instant motion was filed. Any claims of medical
malpractice or professional negligence against CFG or its fictitious doctors
and nurses who evaluated Watson must therefore be dismissed for failure
to state a cause of action.
Plaintiff is correct that this decision has no effect on any federal civil
rights claims alleged. 1 Plaintiff’s other arguments against summary
judgment, however, are without merit and have previously been rejected by
this Court. See, e.g., Estate of Allen v. Cumberland County, 262 F. Supp. 3d
112 (D.N.J. 2017) (common knowledge exception to Affidavit of Merit
Statute did not apply to same fact pattern); Richards v. Wong, No. 14-3353
(PGS), 2015 WL 4742344, at *4 (D.N.J. Aug. 10, 2015) (CFG Health
The Court notes, however, that the claims against CFG are based on an
alleged medical failure of its employees to properly screen for suicidal
tendencies that would result in monitoring and protecting the inmate.
1
6
Systems, LLC is entitled to invoke the protections afforded by the Affidavit
of Merit Statute to “licensed persons”).
Conclusion
For these reasons, Defendant CFG Health Systems, LLC’s motion for
summary judgment will be granted. Any claims of medical malpractice/
professional negligence against CFG are dismissed for failure to timely
provide an Affidavit of Merit as required by N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A-29. An
appropriate Order will be filed.
Dated: February 27, 2018
/s/ Joseph H. Rodriguez
JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ
U.S.D.J.
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?