eNotes: Liability – January 2025 – New Jersey

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

New Jersey Case Summary

Donnelly v. Our Lady of Lourdes Med. Ctr.
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2962

Decided: December 2, 2024

Appellate Division affirms that an expert’s proposed testimony in a medical malpractice action should not be excluded merely because it fails to account for some facts in the medical record that the medical providers deemed potentially relevant to treatment strategy.

Background

Plaintiff, on behalf of decedent, Lisa Santangelo, brought a wrongful death/medical malpractice action against Defendant as a result of an exploratory laparotomy with a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy performed on decedent. Shortly after the procedure, decedent was admitted to the hospital upon complaints of worsening abdominal pain. Plaintiff claimed that subsequent CT scans and X-rays of the decedent were “very alarming” and warranted immediate corrective surgery. Defendant, however, decided to monitor and provide further evaluation to decedent. Less than one month after the procedure, decedent passed away.

Experts retained by Plaintiff opined that Defendants’ failure to take decedent to the operating room immediately after discovering the “very alarming” CT scans and X-rays, deviated from the applicable standard of care and ultimately caused decedent’s death. After discovery, the parties moved for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the expert reports of Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence, because they gave little consideration to some facts in the medical record that Defendants deemed potentially relevant to the treatment strategy.

Holding

Based on examination and review of the medical records, Plaintiff’s experts opined that Defendants deviated from the “generally accepted” standard of care owed to the decedent, which was a substantial factor in decedent’s death. The Appellate Division explained that these experts sufficiently provided opinions alleging the deviations from the standard of care and causation, regardless of whether these experts considered all facts contained in the medical record, and thus, summary judgment should have been denied to those Defendants.

Questions about this case can be directed to Jayden Peters at (908) 589-7518 or jpeters@tthlaw.com.