Background Facts
On June 14, 2020, plaintiff’s sister had plaintiff, an attorney, transported to Hackensack University Medical Center’s (HUMC) emergency room for treatment of right hip pain that prevented her from ambulating. During her treatment at the hospital, information was erroneously entered into plaintiff’s medical records that confused her with a family member with mental illness. Defendants recorded that plaintiff had a history of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, was not currently on medications, and needed a psychiatric evaluation. However, plaintiff had no history of schizophrenia nor had she ever been diagnosed or treated for any psychiatric illness. The error resulted in plaintiff being involuntarily committed for twelve days and risked her being transferred to disability inactive status as an attorney.
On June 8, 2021, plaintiff filed a three-count complaint against defendants alleging medical malpractice, defamation, and infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, among other relief. Defendants filed a contesting answer, demanding an Affidavit of Merit (AOM). On March 31, 2023, the motion judge denied plaintiff’s motion for an order waiving the AOM requirement under the common knowledge exception and ruled that AOMs were required for the negligence asserted in her complaint. The judge later denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. When plaintiff failed to produce the AOMs after the statutory time period and an extension expired, the judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice in a June 23, 2023 order. The plaintiff appealed.
Common Knowledge Doctrine
The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division stated in its September 6, 2024 Per Curiam opinion that the common knowledge doctrine is an exception to the AOM requirement that arises when the claimed malpractice or professional negligence involves matters of common knowledge. The exception applies only in the rare case where the carelessness of the defendant is readily apparent to anyone of average intelligence and when expert testimony is not required to prove a professional defendant’s negligence. It applies where jurors’ common knowledge as lay persons is sufficient to enable them, using ordinary understanding and experience, to determine a defendant’s negligence without the benefit of the specialized knowledge of experts.
The New Jersey appellate court held: “Here, plaintiff claims the common knowledge doctrine applies, rendering an AOM unnecessary, because “the error was one of inputting” information, and an expert is not required to demonstrate that “putting someone else’s mental illness on another patient’s record” is negligent. We agree.”
“Plaintiff’s allegations do not require expert testimony to explain that the entry of inaccurate statements into a patient’s medical record constitutes negligence … plaintiff’s malpractice claim hinges on who was responsible for inputting inaccurate information into plaintiff’s medical record, rather than with professional standards of medical care. Because plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim does not require expert testimony, we conclude the judge erred in finding the AOM statute applied.”
Defamation Claim
“Here, plaintiff is not a public figure, and her medical records are not a matter of public concern. As such, her defamation claim should be evaluated under a negligence standard. Because the judge dismissed plaintiff’s defamation claim on the ground that she failed to plead facts showing defendants’ intent to defame as well as the judge’s misapprehension of the applicability of the common knowledge doctrine to the malpractice claim, we reverse the dismissal of count two and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Intentional Or Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress Claim
“Plaintiff has pled facts that adequately establish the elements of an intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. Undoubtedly, erroneous documentation of schizophrenia in plaintiff’s medical records that resulted in a twelve-day involuntary commitment could give rise to a cause of action for infliction of emotional distress, whether negligent or intentional. At the very least, if necessary, plaintiff should have been afforded an opportunity to amend the complaint either by clarifying or amplifying the allegations.”
Source Kleinman v. Hackensack University Medical Center, Docket No. A-3499-22.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of the improper admission to a hospital in New Jersey or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a New Jersey medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a hospital admission 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 attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
