Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

The New Jersey Supreme Court clarified recent interpretations of the “like-licensed” requirement of the Affidavit of Merit Statute.

October 3, 2016
Meehan v. Antonellis, 2016 N.J. LEXIS 850 (2016)

Recent court rulings have interpreted the Affidavit of Merit Statute as requiring that a plaintiff secure an affidavit from an expert with equivalent licensure and credentials of the professional defendant. In Meehan, the plaintiff sought help for sleep apnea from an orthodontist, who fitted the plaintiff with a dental appliance that made the plaintiff’s symptoms worse and actually shifted the plaintiff’s teeth. The plaintiff served an Affidavit of Merit from a prosthodontist rather than an orthodontist. The defendant orthodontist moved to dismiss the claim because a “like-licensed” professional did not prepare the Affidavit of Merit. The Supreme Court clarified and relaxed the procedural requirements of the various Affidavit of Merit Statutes by ruling that the “like-licensed” standard is applicable only to medical malpractice lawsuits filed pursuant to the Patients First Act. Although not directly about architects, engineers or other licensed design professionals, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Meehan directly impacts design professionals. Within its rationale, the Supreme Court held that in all other actions against a licensed professional, the affiant must hold an appropriate license and must demonstrate particular expertise in the general area or specialty involved in the action, but he or she is not required to possess credentials equivalent to those of the licensed professional defendant. The court did not limit its holding to only those licensed professional defendants within the medical malpractice arena. In doing so, the court effectively relaxed the procedural requirements imposed on plaintiffs when bringing a professional negligence action against architects and engineers. While recent case law had begun to impose stricter requirements—i.e., requiring a “like-licensed” expert—Meehan simply makes bringing a professional negligence action against architects and engineers a bit easier.


Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2016. Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2016 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."