On June 1, 2018, Marc Sovelove (decedent) underwent an elective right kidney biopsy at Overlook Hospital in Summit that had been ordered by his nephrologist, defendant Dr. Sanford T. Reikes, M.D. The procedure was performed by defendant Dr. Michael Shirazi, an interventional radiologist, where a computed tomography (CT) scan is used to guide a needle into the kidney to obtain small tissue samples. The procedure is considered to be minimally invasive and is an alternative to an open surgical procedure, has a faster recovery time, and avoids general anesthesia.
Shortly after the biopsy was completed, decedent complained of right-side lower quadrant abdominal pain, became very pale, and was profusely sweating. Suspecting an internal bleed, Dr. Shirazi ordered a CT scan of the right kidney which showed that the kidney was actively bleeding. The bleeding was diagnosed as a large retroperitoneal bleed which plaintiff alleged was caused by the biopsy procedure.
Dr. Shirazi sent decedent to the Emergency Department at Overlook Hospital to treat the bleeding. During that same day, decedent was seen and examined by other physicians, including defendant, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist. Although all of these physicians examined decedent that afternoon, plaintiff alleged none of them made any effort to intervene to stop the internal bleeding. Plaintiff further alleged that, although blood transfusions were ordered, decedent received no blood transfusions. Plaintiff alleged almost five hours after the retroperitoneal bleed was diagnosed by CT scan, another interventional radiologist took decedent to an operating suite to perform an
embolization to stop the internal bleeding. As he was being prepared for this procedure, decedent suddenly became pulseless, went into cardiac arrest and died.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint identified defendant as a physician specializing in critical care and pulmonology. The complaint alleged that following the right kidney biopsy with resulting puncture, defendant was required to “properly manage [decedent’s] care to arrange for appropriate consultations and to perform necessary surgical procedures to ensure that that patient did not bleed to death.” Plaintiff claimed that defendant along with the other named defendants were “negligent and deviated from the accepted standards of medical practice in the community in their care and treatment of [p]laintiff’s [d]ecedent, [] which negligence and deviations were the proximate cause of his death.”
Defendant holds board certifications in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine and critical care medicine, which were issued by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM). At the time defendant provided care and treatment to
plaintiff, she asserts she was practicing in the specialties of pulmonology and critical care.
The trial court found when a physician is a specialist and the basis of the malpractice involves the physician’s specialty, the challenging expert must practice in the same specialty. The trial court concluded that based on the record, AOM [affidavit of merit] statute and the holding in Nicholas that Dr. Skudder’s AOM was non-compliant, and dismissal was appropriate.
The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division held in its June 17, 2025 Per Curiam, “After our de novo review, we conclude the trial court’s finding that plaintiff’s AOM was insufficient under the AOM Statute was correct and, thus,
dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint was appropriate. Defendant specialized in internal medicine and subspecialized in pulmonology and critical care medicine. Defendant asserted that the care and treatment she provided to plaintiff were
within those subspecialties. Under the ABMS, the subspecialties of pulmonology and critical care medicine are under the specialty of internal medicine … As a result, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(a), plaintiff was required to submit an AOM from an expert who also specializes in internal medicine or subspecializes in pulmonology or critical care medicine. These were the specialties and subspecialties required to be practiced by Dr. Skudder in order for his AOM to be sufficient under the AOM Statute. Dr. Skudder was required to “be a specialist in the same field in which the [defendant] specializes.” See Nicholas, 213 N.J. at 481-82, citing N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41. We conclude the AOM of Dr. Skudder failed to meet these requirements.”
Source Sovelove v. Shirazi, Docket No. A-1540-23.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical negligence in New Jersey or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a New Jersey medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
