12 Cited authorities

Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Associates
178 N.J. 144 (N.J. 2003) Cited 254 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "counsel's carelessness in misfiling defendant's answer and failing to calendar matter does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance"
Galik v. Clara Maass Medical Center
167 N.J. 341 (N.J. 2001) Cited 157 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that there had been substantial compliance with the statute where plaintiff served unsworn expert reports on the defendants eight months prior to litigation, and plaintiff's counsel explained that he thought he had exceeded his obligations under the Affidavit of Merit Statute
Burns v. Belafsky
166 N.J. 466 (N.J. 2001) Cited 132 times
Holding that failure to timely file affidavit was not prejudicial because it was “simply too early in the litigation for that claim to be credible”
Paragon Contractors, Inc. v. Peachtree Condominium as
202 N.J. 415 (N.J. 2010) Cited 88 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "our creation of a tickler system to remind attorneys and their clients about critical filing dates plainly cannot trump the statute. In other words, the absence of a Ferreira conference cannot toll the legislatively prescribed time frames."
Fink v. Thompson
167 N.J. 551 (N.J. 2001) Cited 64 times
Holding that an affidavit that inadvertedly excluded the name of a defendant-professional involved in the malpractice action did not prejudice the defendant-professional, and noting that “permitting plaintiff's case to proceed would not result in undue additional defense costs”
Mayfield v. Community Med. Assoc
335 N.J. Super. 198 (App. Div. 2000) Cited 58 times
Holding that "no prejudice [whatsoever] . . . would result to defendants, other than that they would have to defend against a potentially meritorious claim, which is not legal prejudice, and noting that a procedural disposition "would warrant visiting on the innocent clients an error of their attorney"
Barreiro v. Morais
318 N.J. Super. 461 (App. Div. 1999) Cited 44 times
Holding "[w]e recognize these rulings are dictum. Nonetheless, we consider ourselves bound by them"
Balthazar v. Atlantic City Medical Center
358 N.J. Super. 13 (App. Div. 2003) Cited 21 times
Holding that the defendant's delay in the production of records had no effect on the plaintiff's ability to obtain an affidavit of merit
Poetz v. Mix
7 N.J. 436 (N.J. 1951) Cited 54 times
Holding "[t]he requirement of such a written demand, however, is undoubtedly for the benefit of the injured employee, and he may waive it, especially where, as here, the action would have been barred if the requirement had been observed"
Section 2A:53A-27 - Affidavit of lack of care in action for professional, medical malpractice or negligence; requirements
N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-27 Cited 579 times 12 Legal Analyses
Requiring the affidavit "of an appropriate licensed person"
Section 2A:53A-26 - "Licensed person" defined
N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-26 Cited 296 times 15 Legal Analyses
Listing as a "licensed person" "a physician in the practice of medicine or surgery"
Section 2A:53A-29 - Noncompliance deemed failure to state cause of action
N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-29 Cited 229 times 3 Legal Analyses
Setting forth the consequence for a plaintiff's failure to provide an AOM

Nam v. Nelke

12 Cited authorities

Holding that "counsel's carelessness in misfiling defendant's answer and failing to calendar matter does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance"

Holding that there had been substantial compliance with the statute where plaintiff served unsworn expert reports on the defendants eight months prior to litigation, and plaintiff's counsel explained that he thought he had exceeded his obligations under the Affidavit of Merit Statute

Holding that failure to timely file affidavit was not prejudicial because it was “simply too early in the litigation for that claim to be credible”

Holding "our creation of a tickler system to remind attorneys and their clients about critical filing dates plainly cannot trump the statute. In other words, the absence of a Ferreira conference cannot toll the legislatively prescribed time frames."

Holding that an affidavit that inadvertedly excluded the name of a defendant-professional involved in the malpractice action did not prejudice the defendant-professional, and noting that “permitting plaintiff's case to proceed would not result in undue additional defense costs”

Holding "[w]e recognize these rulings are dictum. Nonetheless, we consider ourselves bound by them"

Holding that the defendant's delay in the production of records had no effect on the plaintiff's ability to obtain an affidavit of merit

Holding "[t]he requirement of such a written demand, however, is undoubtedly for the benefit of the injured employee, and he may waive it, especially where, as here, the action would have been barred if the requirement had been observed"

Requiring the affidavit "of an appropriate licensed person"

Listing as a "licensed person" "a physician in the practice of medicine or surgery"

Setting forth the consequence for a plaintiff's failure to provide an AOM