Jamie Gannon and Rebecca Gannon v. American Home Products, Inc., et al. (A-80-10; 066899)

Jamie Gannon and Rebecca Gannon v. American Home Products, Inc., et al. (A-80-10; 066899)

Federal principles must govern the preclusive effect of a federal judgment. For collateral estoppel purposes, plaintiffs were afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the essential claims of their dispute. The appellate panel erred in concluding that equitable considerations demand that plaintiffs be permitted to have their claims heard again.

Jamie Gannon and Rebecca Gannon v. American Home Products, Inc., et al. (A-80-10; 066899)

Federal principles must govern the preclusive effect of a federal judgment. For collateral estoppel purposes, plaintiffs were afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the essential claims of their dispute. The appellate panel erred in concluding that equitable considerations demand that plaintiffs be permitted to have their claims heard again.

Jamie Gannon and Rebecca Gannon v. American Home Products, Inc., et al. (A-80-10; 066899)

Federal principles must govern the preclusive effect of a federal judgment. For collateral estoppel purposes, plaintiffs were afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the essential claims of their dispute. The appellate panel erred in concluding that equitable considerations demand that plaintiffs be permitted to have their claims heard again.

N.J. Division of Youth and Family Services v. F.M. (A-108-10; 067611)

N.J. Division of Youth and Family Services v. F.M. (A-108-10; 067611)

In this termination of parental rights case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15, the record supports the family court’s decision to terminate defendant F.M.’s parental rights, and the doctrine of laches bars her claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that a statutory prerequisite for the commencing the termination of her parental rights was not met.

Vonnie Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corp. (A-88/89-10; 066671)

Vonnie Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corp. (A-88/89-10; 066671)

The Cornett complaint is time-barred. The failure to warn claim as to approved and off-label uses is preempted, except to the extent plaintiffs base the claim on allegations of deliberate non-disclosure or fraudulent representations of known adverse information apart from defendants’ failure to comply with FDA disclosure requirements or promotion of off- label uses outside the safe harbor. The breach of express warranty claim is also preempted, except to the extent plaintiffs allege defendants have made voluntary statements to third parties beyond and different from the information on the approved label or packaging.

Moses Segal v. Cynthia Lynch and Linda A. Schofel (A-127-10; 067683)

Moses Segal v. Cynthia Lynch and Linda A. Schofel
          (A-127-10; 067683)

          The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed to
          the extent that it affirmed the trial court’s April
          14, 2008, order awarding fees to Schofel for her work
          as a parent coordinator in responding to the
          grievances and to the extent that it affirmed the
          trial court’s rejection of Segal’s argument that he
          was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his
          grievances; in all other respects the judgment of the
          Appellate Division is reversed.  
8-2-12    

Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (A-112-10; 067640)

 Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (A-112-10; 067640)

          An injured employee does not have a common law right
          of action against a workers’ compensation carrier for
          pain and suffering cause by the carrier’s delay in
          paying for or authorizing treatment because 1) the
          workers’ compensation system was designed to provide
          injured workers with a remedy outside of the ordinary
          tort or contract remedies cognizable in the Superior
          Court; 2) in amending the Workers’ Compensation Act in
          2008, the Legislature rejected a provision that would
          have given the compensation courts broader permission
          to authorize a resort to the Superior Court and
          adopted a remedy that permits compensation courts to
          act through a contempt power; and 3) allowing a direct

common-law cause of action against a carrier would
          undermine the workers’ compensation system by
          substituting a cause of action that would become the
          preferred manner of securing relief. 
8-1-12