A New Jersey court has upheld a ruling regarding expert testimony in a medical malpractice case involving the estate of Nancy Adams. The decision affects how negligence claims can be presented in similar cases, particularly regarding the roles of settling and non-settling defendants.

The case, Scott W. Adams, Etc. v. Steven Yang, M.D., was decided by the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division and is documented under Docket No. A-0052-22. The court ruled on February 21, 2023, affirming a lower court's decision that allows the plaintiff to present expert testimony that contradicts earlier claims made against a settling defendant.

Background

The dispute began when Nancy Adams was admitted to Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in November 2010 with severe abdominal issues. After a CT scan conducted by Dr. Steven Yang, a radiologist, no acute findings were reported. However, as her condition worsened, she was referred to Dr. Herve Boucard of Hamilton Gastroenterology Group for further evaluation.

Despite ongoing treatment, it wasn't until December 2012 that a gastric biopsy revealed that Adams had stage IV gastric cancer. She passed away in August 2013. In 2015, her estate filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against both Dr. Yang and Dr. Boucard, claiming they failed to diagnose her cancer in a timely manner.

Initially, the estate settled its claims against Dr. Yang and his practice, Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. However, the case continued against Dr. Boucard and Hamilton Gastroenterology Group. The plaintiff intended to call Dr. Andrew Bierhals as an expert witness to argue that Dr. Yang did not deviate from the standard of care in his interpretation of the CT scan.

The Ruling

The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division ruled that the trial court did not err in allowing Dr. Bierhals to testify. The court found that the legal principle of judicial estoppel, as established in the case of Glassman v. Friedel, does not apply to joint tortfeasors in the same way it does to successive tortfeasors.

The court stated, "Glassman does not extend its application of judicial estoppel to cases involving only joint tortfeasors."

Judge Mitterhoff delivered the opinion, emphasizing that allowing the plaintiff to change positions regarding the negligence of a settling defendant does not undermine the integrity of the judicial process. The court noted that damages in cases involving joint tortfeasors are not divisible, which is a key distinction from cases involving successive tortfeasors.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future medical malpractice cases in New Jersey. It clarifies that plaintiffs may present expert testimony that contradicts previous claims made against settling defendants, which could influence how negligence is argued in court. The decision also reinforces the idea that judicial estoppel is not a favored remedy and should only be applied in limited circumstances.

The court's decision allows for a more flexible approach in presenting expert opinions, which could lead to different outcomes in negligence claims. This ruling may encourage plaintiffs to pursue claims against non-settling defendants without fear of being barred from changing their position on the negligence of settling defendants.

What's Next

While the defendants may seek further legal recourse, the court's ruling stands as a precedent for similar cases. Details about any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.