ASIA O'BRIEN VS. MOUNTAINSIDE HOSPITAL(L-0594-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1794-15T3
ASIA O'BRIEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MOUNTAINSIDE HOSPITAL,
Defendant-Respondent,
and
DR. PENG, DR. R. DE MARSICO,
R. SCHEPIS, R.N., J. BENECH,
R.N., E. TOPOLENSKI, R.N.,
E. DARISH, R.N., B. ROSS,
C. BROWN, and V. YIRKA,
Defendants.
_________________________________
Argued March 16, 2017 – Decided October 16, 2017
Before Judges Espinosa and Suter.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No.
L-0594-13.
Brian M. Dratch argued the cause for appellant
(Franzblau Dratch, attorneys; Mr. Dratch on
the briefs).
Anthony Cocca argued the cause for respondent
(Bubb, Grogan & Cocca, LLP, attorneys; Mr.
Cocca, of counsel and on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SUTER, J.A.D.
Plaintiff Asia O'Brien appeals the November 10, 2015 summary
judgment order that dismissed with prejudice her litigation
against defendant Mountainside Hospital (Mountainside) and the
December 18, 2015 order that denied reconsideration. We affirm
both orders. The trial judge did not abuse her discretion in
denying plaintiff's second request for an adjournment of the
summary judgment motion, in granting that motion, which was
unopposed, in denying recusal when there was no evidence of bias
and in denying reconsideration.
In January 2013, plaintiff filed a medical malpractice
complaint against Mountainside, seeking damages because of a scar
on her face that she alleges occurred from a scratch sustained in
the hospital when she was a newborn. Mountainside filed for
summary judgment after discovery closed in January 2015. The
motion was denied without prejudice by the trial judge because the
presiding judge extended discovery until the end of July, entering
a scheduling order that required plaintiff to serve expert reports
by the end of April 2015. Plaintiff missed that deadline.
2 A-1794-15T3
Plaintiff's expert report was served in June 2015. The one
page report by Dr. Carl DeFronzo (DeFronzo report), a Board
certified obstetrician and gynecologist, stated that hospital
records confirmed the presence of a "small scratch on [plaintiff's]
right cheek." Because there was no notation about treatment, he
opined "the incident was not handled properly and was a breach of
standard of care." "[A]n incident report should have been filed
immediately," and a "nurse supervisor should have been notified."
A doctor should have "discussed the appropriate course of action,"
and "[t]he proper follow up procedure should have included wound
care instructions for the parents as well as a follow up visit
with the physician for evaluation."
Subsequently, the trial judge denied without prejudice two
motions by Mountainside to dismiss the complaint, extended
discovery for thirty days to permit plaintiff to depose a nurse,
and prohibited plaintiff from serving additional expert reports.
The trial judge denied plaintiff's request that she recuse herself.
None of these orders are appealed.
On September 25, 2015, Mountainside again filed a motion for
summary judgment. There were no other defendants in the case by
that time. Although originally returnable on October 23, 2015,
the motion was adjourned at plaintiff's request to November 6, to
accord plaintiff time to respond. The motion alleged the DeFronzo
3 A-1794-15T3
report was not sufficient to support the malpractice claim against
the hospital.
Plaintiff served a supplemental report by Dr. DeFronzo
(supplemental report) on October 9, which opined that if "prompt
medical treatment" had been given to plaintiff as an infant "this
treatment would have greatly improved her outcome." The report
stated that "treatment intervention" could have included "ultra-
fine sutures," "Steri-strips" or "medical glue." The doctor
"inferred" from the size of the present scar that "the laceration
must have been wide."
On November 6, around noon, a call was placed to the trial
judge's chambers by a member of plaintiff's counsel's staff,
requesting an adjournment of the summary judgment motion because
the file "had fallen through the cracks." The trial court denied
this request. Plaintiff did not file opposition. On November 10,
2015, the trial court granted the unopposed summary judgment
motion, which dismissed the litigation with prejudice.
Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the November 10 order and
requested to vacate it. Her counsel complained the court did not
advise him the motion had been adjourned to November 6.
Apparently, an in limine motion had been filed by Mountainside
that raised the same issues because there had been a trial date
for October 23, so counsel believed the summary judgment motion
4 A-1794-15T3
was moot. He certified plaintiff had an expert with two reports
and was ready to proceed.
The trial court denied the reconsideration motion on December
18, 2015, because plaintiff had not submitted any opposition to
the summary judgment motion and thus, there was nothing to
reconsider. The trial court again denied the motion to recuse.
Plaintiff appeals both the November 10, 2015 order granting
summary judgment and the December 18, 2015 order that denied
reconsideration and recusal. Plaintiff alleges the court abused
its discretion in denying her request to adjourn the summary
judgment motion, when "the same motion had been opposed on a prior
occasion." Plaintiff appeals the summary judgment order because
the trial court did not detail her findings of fact or conclusions
of law in a written or oral opinion, citing to Rule 1:7-4.
Plaintiff contends the expert reports are not net opinions because
they "accurately delineate the standard of care, a deviation in
that standard and proximate cause."
The decision whether to adjourn a motion is one left to the
sound discretion of the court. Kosmowski v. Atl. City Med. Ctr.,
175 N.J. 568, 575 (2003); see also Bartell v. Razzano, 119 N.J.
Super. 243, 247 (1972); State v. Hayes, 205 N.J. 522, 537 (2011).
Our review is limited to determining whether the trial court abused
its discretion in denying the request. State v. Shalom Money St.,
5 A-1794-15T3
LLC, 432 N.J. Super. 1, 7 (2013). An abuse of discretion "arises
when a decision is 'made without a rational explanation,
inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an
impermissible basis.'" Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J.
561, 571, (2002) (quoting Achacoso-Sanchez v. Immigration &
Naturalization Serv., 779 F.2d 1260, 1265 (7th Cir. 1985)).
Here, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the request
to adjourn the summary judgment motion. The trial court already
had granted one adjournment. The second request, made orally on
the return date of the motion, did not indicate that notice was
given to the other side or adequately explain the need for an
adjournment. There already had been multiple motions for summary
judgment in the case, discovery was closed, and further requests
to extend discovery denied. The case had multiple trial listings.
If counsel were unaware of the initial adjournment, as contended,
that did not explain why opposition had not been filed.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of
Mountainside on November 10, 2015, dismissing the complaint. We
review a trial court's orders granting or denying summary judgment
under the same standard employed by the motion judge. Globe Motor
Co. v. Igdaley, 225 N.J. 469, 479 (2016); see also, Templo Fuente
De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 224 N.J. 189, 199
(2016). The question is whether the evidence, when viewed in a
6 A-1794-15T3
light most favorable to the non-moving party, raises genuinely
disputed issues of fact sufficient to warrant resolution by the
trier of fact, or whether the evidence is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law. See Brill v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).
Here, the trial court did not issue a written or oral decision
in support of the summary judgment order because the motion was
unopposed. Rule 1:7-4(a) provides that a trial judge "shall, by
an opinion or memorandum decision, either written or oral, find
the facts and state [his or her] conclusions of law thereon in all
actions tried without a jury . . . ." "The Rule requires specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law . . . ." Pressler &
Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 1 on R. 1:7-4 (2017).
We agree with plaintiff that the trial court should have
explained its decision on the record or issued a statement of
reasons even though the summary judgment motion was unopposed.
Based on the unopposed nature of the motion and our standard of
review, however, we discern no error by the trial court in granting
summary judgment.
The first expert report simply did not address the standard
of care that was required, the deviation from that standard, or
that the deviation proximately caused plaintiff's injuries. See
Gonzales v. Silver, 407 N.J. Super. 576, 586 (App. Div. 2009)
7 A-1794-15T3
(describing the required elements of a medical malpractice case).
Instead, the expert was critical of the hospital's record keeping,
never suggesting how that proximately related to plaintiff's
injury.
In October 2015, plaintiff served a supplemental report. This
was well after the trial date was set and discovery concluded, and
was served without an order granting permission. See R. 4:24-
1(c); R. 4:24-2. It would not have been proper to consider the
supplemental expert report under these circumstances. Plaintiff
filed no opposition to the summary judgment motion, stating simply
that she had an expert who issued two reports and she attached
them. We discern no error by the trial court in granting summary
judgment on this unopposed motion.
The trial court denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider or
to vacate the November 10 summary judgment order. Reconsideration
is appropriate only where "1) the [c]ourt has expressed its
decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or
2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or
failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent
evidence." D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div.
1990). Reconsideration may also be granted where "a litigant
wishes to bring new or additional information to the [c]ourt's
attention which it could not have provided on the first
8 A-1794-15T3
application." Ibid. Plaintiff never opposed the summary judgment
motion or obtained permission to serve the supplemental report,
giving the court no basis for reconsideration.
Plaintiff contends the trial judge erred in not recusing
herself from the case. "[T]he key question that must be answered
when a claim is made challenging a judge's impartiality is,
'[w]ould a reasonable, fully informed person have doubts about the
judge's impartiality?'" P.M. v. N.P., 441 N.J. Super. 127, 145
(App. Div. 2015)(alteration in original)(quoting DeNike v. Cupo,
196 N.J. 502, 517 (2008)). We have reviewed the entire record and
find no evidence of bias in the court's rulings, which in fact
gave significant latitude to plaintiff. Disagreement with the
court's decision is not a basis to request recusal. See State v.
Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 186 (1997) (stating that "bias is not
established by the fact that a litigant is disappointed in a
court's ruling on an issue.").
Affirmed.
9 A-1794-15T3