Mainland Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center v.New Jersey Department of Health & Senior Services

11-17-08
A-4438-06T2

If a health care facility's application for a certificate
of need is denied, and the facility fails to appeal from the
grant of a certificate of need to another medical facility for
the same medical service, an appeal from the denial of the
certificate may become moot if the successful applicant has
instituted the new medical service. If an Administrative Law
Judge makes findings of fact and conclusions of law which
indicate that the agency head's preliminary decision was
erroneous, the agency head must consider that decision de novo
in light of the Administrative Law Judge's findings and
conclusions.

Jeffrey Shectman v. Robert Bransfield, M.D.

11-13-08
A-3035-07T2

In this medical malpractice action, defendant was entitled
to have the jury instructed on medical judgment because the
expert testimony established that there were two generally
accepted courses of treatment that could have been employed and
the choice between the two was a matter of the physician's
judgment.

St. James AME Development Corporation v. City of

11-13-08
A-1029-07T3

A motion to dismiss a complaint with prejudice for failure
to answer interrogatories must be denied when the earlier order
to dismiss without prejudice is not served on the plaintiff.
Moreover, such a motion to dismiss with prejudice must also
be denied if fully responsive answers had been provided and a
motion to restore is pending. If there is a dispute regarding
the responsiveness of the answer, the judge must decide that
issue before addressing the motions to restore or to dismiss.

Thomas John Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group, Inc.,

11-12-08
A-6715-06T1

Plaintiff is the son of a former officer of NorVergence,
Inc., which is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings. The media
defendants reported on a complaint filed in federal court
against plaintiff by the trustee of NorVergence's assets. The
trustee claimed that NorVergence funds were fraudulently
transferred to plaintiff, and alleged that plaintiff "unlawfully
diverted, converted and misappropriated" NorVergence funds "for
his own personal benefit." The media defendants asserted in
their articles about the trustee's suit, among other things,
that plaintiff "stole" NorVergence funds. The trial judge
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, which pled
numerous causes of action, including defamation, for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
In this appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that defendants could not rely upon the fair
report privilege because the proceeding they reported on
consisted only of an initial pleading that had not been the
subject of judicial review. Absent the shield of the fair
report privilege, defendants could not demonstrate the
statements were true or nondefamatory. The court also held
that, although a private person, plaintiff was embroiled in a
public matter and must be held to the actual malice standard,
but the court also held that plaintiff should be permitted to
amend his complaint.

Grow Company, Inc. v. Dilip Chokshi and Pharmachem

11-12-08
A-4282-06T2

In this appeal, the court reviewed a partial summary
judgment that found the terms of an earlier settlement agreement
required a dismissal of plaintiff's claims against defendant
Dilip Chokshi, who was plaintiff's former employee, and
defendant Pharmachem Laboratories, Inc., with whom Chokshi
presently has a business relationship. The trial judge also
found that the settlement agreement entitled Chokshi to an award
of counsel fees, but did not quantify the amount due, choosing
instead to dismiss that claim without prejudice to be renewed in
a later suit. The court concluded that the disposition of the
fee issue was not a final determination and left interlocutory
the order under review. Although the court again condemned the
foisting of jurisdiction upon it in the absence of a final
order, as it had in Vitanza v. James, 397 N.J. Super. 516 (App.
Div. 2008), in these particular circumstances the court found it
equitable to grant leave to appeal out of time.
In reaching the merits, the court reversed the partial
summary judgment, holding that the settlement agreement was
capable of more than one plausible interpretation. The court
also declined to determine whether a former employer was limited
to a single suit against an allegedly disloyal former employee,
leaving that novel issue to further factual development in the
trial court.
Lastly, the court concluded that the trial judge had no
authority to compel plaintiff to post a supersedeas bond because
plaintiff had not sought a stay and because no money judgment
had been entered against plaintiff.

Rutgers-The State University v. Alter Fogel

11-07-08
A-1493-07T2

The venue section of the Federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692i, requires that debt
collection actions be filed either in the county where the
debtor lives or in the county where the debtor signed the
contract underlying the debt.

New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co. v. Horizon Blue

11-03-08
A-0712-07T3

The issue in this appeal is whether a health insurer whose
insured has designated the health insurance as primary under
N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.3d, is required to participate in PIP
arbitration pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1. We conclude that
this statutory arbitration provision does not apply to health
insurers.