Hackensack Radiology Group, Pa v. Goksin Sensoz ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1524-22
HACKENSACK RADIOLOGY
GROUP, PA,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
GOKSIN SENSOZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted January 8, 2024 – Decided January 25, 2024
Before Judges Sabatino and Marczyk.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County, Docket No. DC-008886-22.
Guvenc Acarkan, attorney for appellant.
Michael S. Harrison, attorney for respondent (Stacy B.
Fronapfel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Goksin Sensoz appeals from the trial court's December 16,
2022 orders granting plaintiff Hackensack Radiology Group's ("Hackensack")
motion for summary judgment as to its affirmative claims and its motion to
dismiss defendant's counterclaim. Following our review of the record and the
applicable legal principles, we affirm.
I.
On November 16, 2021, defendant underwent a CT scan of her abdomen
and pelvis at Hackensack.1 After defendant failed to pay for the services,
Hackensack filed a complaint in August 2022 seeking to recover $518.16.2
Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim in November 2022.3 Defendant's
answer stated in relevant part, "[d]espite the explanation of the defective
services and that no debt is owed to [p]laintiff, they have persisted to file a
lawsuit against [d]efendant." Defendant's counterclaim alleged that Hackensack
1
As discussed below, on November 26, 2021, defendant also underwent an MRI
of her abdomen and pelvis. The November 16, 2021 CT scan is the subject of
Hackensack's contract claim. The November 26, 2021 MRI is relevant to
defendant's counterclaim because she claims one or both studies were
improperly interpreted by the respective radiologists.
2
Hackensack submitted an invoice in the amount of $1,369.55 for the
November 16, 2021 date of service to Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New
Jersey. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield reimbursed Hackensack $851.39.
Defendant was billed for the remaining $518.16.
3
Default was initially entered but subsequently vacated to allow defendant to
answer the complaint.
A-1524-22
2
"rendered defective radiology services" regarding a report showing "material
mistakes as to whether medical issues to . . . [d]efendant are in her left or right
kidney and whether they are in her left or right pelvis." Defendant also
characterized the CT scan and MRI reports as "defective and inconclusive."
Thereafter, plaintiff moved to dismiss defendant's counterclaim. Plaintiff
further moved for summary judgment requesting the court enter a judgment
against defendant in the amount of $518.16. Defendant filed opposition to both
motions. Therein, defendant did not dispute receiving the medical services at
issue. Rather, defendant attached her certification to the opposition to plaintiff's
summary judgment motion stating, "[t]here are mistakes as to my left and right
lateral pelvis, abdominal [floor] through[out] [the CT scan and MRI] reports.
The reports mistake as to whether the lesion is on the left or the right side."
On December 16, 2022, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss
defendant's counterclaim. The court found that "[t]his court does not have
jurisdiction over professional malpractice claims. The counterclaim alleges
medical malpractice.[4] The counterclaim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."
4
Rule 6:1-2(a) enumerates an exclusive list of matters cognizable by the Special
Civil Part. Rule 6:1-2(a)(1) states, "Civil actions (exclusive of professional
malpractice, probate, and matters cognizable in the Family Part of the Chancery
Division or Tax Court) seeking legal relief when the amount in controversy does
A-1524-22
3
In the court's amplification letter, 5 it clarified its decision to grant the motion
stating that "[Rule] 6:1-2(a)(1) outlines matters considered cognizable in the
Special Civil Part. [Rule] 6:1-2(a)(1) specifically excludes civil actions seeking
legal relief pertaining to professional malpractice." Therefore, the court noted
it "granted plaintiff's motion seeking dismissal of the counterclaim, which
asserted medical malpractice in the form of defective radiology services."
On the same date, the court also granted plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment. In granting summary judgment, the court noted on the order, "[t]here
is no certification of defendant upon personal knowledge per [Rule] 1:6-6
wherein defendant denies receiving the medical service or responsibility for the
outstanding invoice." In the court's amplification letter, it further explained its
reasoning as follows:
[Rule] 1:6-6 requires that facts not appearing of
record or judicially noticeable be presented to the court
not exceed $20,000" are cognizable in the Special Civil Part. (Emphasis added).
The comments to the rule further clarify, "Subparagraph (a)(1) makes clear that
those matters excluded from small claims actions, namely professional
malpractice, . . . are also not cognizable in the Special Civil Part." Pressler &
Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. on R. 6:1-2 (2024) (emphasis added).
Although we agree professional negligence claims cannot be filed in the Special
Civil Part, as discussed below, we assume for the purposes of this appeal—
consistent with defendant's arguments—that she is not asserting a professional
malpractice claim.
5
See Rule 2:5-1(b).
A-1524-22
4
by affidavit or certification made on personal
knowledge. The comments to this rule state, "[t]he
requirements of the rule . . . are not met by affidavits
contain[ing] argument, other forms of hearsay and
general factual or legal conclusions."
[(Second alteration in original)].
On December 19, 2022, the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff in
the amount of $600.16. This appeal followed.
II.
Defendant primarily contends, pursuant to Rule 4:46-2, that there are
material facts in dispute and summary judgment should not have been granted.
Defendant argues her certification, which asserts there were errors in the
radiology reports, required a denial of the summary judgment motion.
Defendant further maintains her counterclaim consisted of a contractual dispute,
not a medical malpractice action, and therefore, the court erroneously dismissed
defendant's counterclaim. More particularly, defendant argues the Hackensack
radiology reports confused findings on her left and right sides and that the
reports conflicted with each other, and therefore, Hackensack rendered
inadequate services.
We review a grant of summary judgment by applying the same legal
standard as the motion judge. Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 59 (2015). We
A-1524-22
5
must determine whether there is a "genuine issue as to any material fact" when
the evidence is "viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party
. . . ." Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 405-06 (2014) (first
quoting R. 4:46-2(c); then quoting Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142
N.J. 520, 540 (1995)). The "trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal
consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special
deference" and are reviewed de novo. Est. of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. & Cas.
Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369, 382-83 (2010).
We also review de novo "the trial court's determination of [a] motion to
dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e)." Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley,
Vignuolo, Hyman & Stahl, P.C., 237 N.J. 91, 108 (2019). Thus, we accord "no
deference to the . . . judge's conclusions." Mac Prop. Grp. LLC & The Cake
Boutique LLC v. Selective Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 473 N.J. Super. 1, 16 (App.
Div. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting State ex rel. Comm'r of Transp. v.
Cherry Hill Mitsubishi, Inc., 439 N.J. Super. 462, 467(App. Div. 2015)).
The premise of defendant's opposition to both the motion for summary
judgment and the motion to dismiss is based on the same theory. She asserts
Hackensack's radiology reports had "material mistakes as to whether medical
issues . . . [were on] her left or right kidney [or] whether they [were] in her left
A-1524-22
6
or right pelvis." In short, she claims the reports were inconsistent and the
services rendered were "defective and inconclusive."
We initially observe defendant has provided no expert testimony to
explain how the reports were purportedly defective. The radiology reports
provided to the court as exhibits were marked by defendant to show the
purported inconsistencies. For example, defendant highlights a portion of the
November 16, 2021 CT scan report reading the "[r]ight low[er] pelvis
demonstrates an ovoid hypodensity . . . . This could represent the right ovary
with a prominent physiologic follicle or [h]emorrhagic cyst. Clinical correlation
is advised." To demonstrate an apparent contradiction, defendant also
underlines a portion of the November 26, 2021 MRI report which reads,
"KIDNEYS: Left renal cyst. No right hydronephrosis."
The November 16, 2021 study was a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis
with and without contrast. The November 26, 2021 study was an MRI of the
abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast. The reports were prepared by
different radiologists. Contrary to defendant's allegations, the studies, on their
face, are not necessarily inconsistent. For example, conspicuously absent from
defendant's certification in opposition to the motions is reference to any other
aspects of the respective reports. The November 16, 2021 CT scan notes
A-1524-22
7
defendant has a hypodensity in the right lower pelvis that could represent "the
right ovary with a prominent physiologic follicle or [h]emorrhagic cyst." This
specific finding—on the same side—is also referenced in the November 26,
2021 MRI of the pelvis. Specifically, the report, when addressing the pelvic
organs, notes a "right ovarian cyst corresponding to the . . . lesion seen on [the]
prior CT and appears to measure smaller compared to the prior exam . . . ."
The second study in this respect is not inconsistent and references the
cysts in the same location. The MRI study mentions an entirely separate
finding—a left renal cyst. This finding, however, does not render one, or both
reports, defective. It simply identifies a potential issue with a different
anatomical structure. To be sure, we have no way to know on this record whether
the radiologists' interpretations of the November 16, 2021 CT scan or November
26, 2021 MRI were accurate. That is precisely why expert testimony is needed
in a case such as this. It could be the films were properly read, or it is possible
they were incorrectly interpreted. Without expert testimony, defendant cannot
establish that the studies were incorrectly read. The subject matter is beyond
the ken of an average juror. Jacobs v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co., 452 N.J.
Super. 494, 505 (App. Div. 2017). Because defendant failed to produce expert
A-1524-22
8
testimony to challenge the accuracy of the radiology reports, the trial court
correctly granted the summary judgment motion and the motion to dismiss.
Defendant's certification in support of her opposition to plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment reads, "[t]here are mistakes as to my left and right lateral
pelvis, abdominal [floor] through[out] [the] reports. The reports mistake as to
whether the lesion is on the left or the right side." Putting aside the fact that
defendant does not identify the specific lesion she is referencing, the
certification is deficient pursuant to Rule 1:6-6. Rule 1:6-6 states the following:
If a motion is based on facts not appearing of
record or not judicially noticeable, the court may hear
it on affidavits made on personal knowledge, setting
forth only facts which are admissible in evidence to
which the affiant is competent to testify and which may
have annexed thereto certified copies of all papers or
parts thereof referred to therein.
[(Emphasis added).]
The comments to the Rule provide, "[t]he requirements of the rule . . . are not
met by affidavits containing argument, other forms of hearsay and general
factual or legal conclusions." Pressler & Verniero, cmt. on R. 1:6-6.
Defendant's purported certification makes no reference to any facts but is rather
an improper attempt to offer an expert opinion. There is no indication defendant
has any education, training, or expertise in the field of radiology such that she
A-1524-22
9
could offer an admissible opinion regarding the interpretations of the
radiographic studies at issue in this matter. Defendant simply provided no
competent expert testimony to contest the interpretation of the Hackensack
reports.
While defendant may not be asserting a malpractice claim, expert
testimony is still necessary under the facts of this case to establish the
radiologists misread the films resulting in Hackensack breaching its contract
with defendant. Given defendant's failure to secure such a report, the trial court
correctly granted summary judgment for Hackensack and dismissed defendant's
counterclaim. Our Supreme Court has observed:
[W]hen presented with a tort or contract claim asserted
against a professional specified in the statute, rather
than focusing on whether the claim is denominated as
tort or contract, attorneys and courts should determine
if the claim's underlying factual allegations require
proof of a deviation from the professional standard of
care applicable to that specific profession.
[Couri v. Gardner, 173 N.J. 328, 340 (2002).]
Although the Couri Court's comments were in the context of a discussion
involving the Affidavit of Merit statute, the same rationale applies here.
Defendant's assertions that the radiographic studies were misread requires proof
A-1524-22
10
of a deviation from the professional standard of care. Defendant's non-expert
certification in this action fails to provide that requisite proof.
We part company with the trial court insofar as it dismissed defendant's
counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction. We agree the Special Civil Part does not
have jurisdiction over professional malpractice claims. We accept, however,
defendant's representation that she was not seeking to assert a medical
malpractice action. Rather, she sought to defend against a breach of contract
action and asserted her own breach of contract claim. Nevertheless, the court
was ultimately correct in its conclusion in granting summary judgment in favor
of plaintiff and dismissing defendant's counterclaim given defendant's failure to
secure expert testimony to contest the accuracy of Hackensack's radiology
reports.
In conclusion, although we do not adopt the court's same reasoning with
respect to the counterclaim, we nevertheless affirm the trial court's orders
granting summary judgment and dismissing defendant's counterclaim. See Isko
v. Planning Bd. of Livingston Twp., 51 N.J. 162, 175 (1968) (appellate court
may affirm a judgment on different grounds than those identified below).
A-1524-22
11
To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of the parties'
remaining arguments, we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-1524-22
12