Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

Absence of Expert Testimony Dooms Emotional Distress Claim

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Dec 29, 2020 in Appellate Division, Judges, Standards of review, Summary judgment | 0 comments

Clark v. Nenna, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2020). After plaintiff broke his femur during a physical therapy session, he had surgery that stabilized his bone using screws and washers. The screw heads caused him discomfort, so he had another surgery, performed by defendant, to remove the screws. Defendant did that successfully. But defendant could not remove the washers because they were “embedded in scar tissue that had developed around the hardware.” Defendant decided to leave the washers where they were because removing them would have required a larger incision and would have created a greater risk of post-operative infection. But he did not document about the decision to leave the washers in place. Nor did he discuss with plaintiff, either before or after the surgery, the idea of leaving the washers undisturbed.

Plaintiff did not learn until more than four years later that the washers were still in his body. At that time, he had x-rays in connection with other medical concerns. Plaintiff sued defendant and other defendants (who were later voluntarily dismissed), claiming emotional distress from having learned that there was hardware still in his body.

The Law Division granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, based on plaintiff’s failure to show compensable damages. Plaintiff appealed, but today the Appellate Division, in an opinion by Judge Mitterhoff that applied de novo review, affirmed.

Judge Mitterhoff noted that only emotional distress that is “severe” or “genuine and substantial” is actionable. Citing Lascurain v. City of Newark, 349 N.J. Super. 251 (App. Div. 2002), she stated that “[b]ecause the severity of emotional distress raises questions of both law and fact, a court first decides whether, as a matter of law, such emotional distress can be found. If a court finds that it can, the jury then decides whether it has in fact been proven.”

“:Ordinarily,” Judge Mitterhoff said, “medical or expert proof is required to establish emotional distress damages.” There were, however, two exceptions. “The first exception applies in cases involving intentional torts such as racial or sexual discrimination.” That exception was not implicated here.

The second exception was “cases in which ‘[t]he nature of [the] particular harm mitigates against the reason for an enhanced standard of proof in the first instance – the elimination of spurious claims.’ In such ‘special circumstances,’ ‘an especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress . . . serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious” quoting Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich, 435 N.J. Super. 198, 239 (App. Div. 2014)). Judge Mitterhoff cited cases exemplifying those “special circumstances,” including “cases where the plaintiff has suffered emotional distress from malicious use of process, Baglini v. Lauletta, 338 N.J. Super. 282, 307 (App. Div. 2001), wrongful birth arising from inadequate genetic counselling, Geler v. Akawie, 358 N.J. Super. 437, 457 (App. Div. 2003), and where a funeral home failed to ensure that orthodox ritual requirements were met, Menorah Chapels at Millburn v. Needle, 386 N.J. Super. 100, 116 (App. Div. 2006).

In each of those circumstances, “any reasonable person [would have suffered] ‘severe’ or ‘genuine and substantial’ emotional distress. Conversely, where the circumstances do not create such a clear objective expectation of ‘severe’ or ‘genuine and substantial’ emotional distress, plaintiffs are required to support their claims for damages with medical or expert proof.”

Here, plaintiff did not “allege that defendant’s conduct was intentional or willful. Nor does the nature of plaintiff’s harm present an ‘especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress.’ As such, plaintiff was required to support his claim for emotional distress damages, as a matter of law, with medical or expert proof. He did not do so.” Accordingly, the Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment against him.



Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Appendix Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress