Trial court grants summary judgment pursuant to New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act.

The defendant, a family practice physician, performed a phlebectomy on the plaintiff, which she claimed caused her permanent injuries. At the ensuing Ferreira conference, the defendant took the position that he was acting as a “family medicine specialist” when he performed the operation. At the defendant’s deposition, he testified that a vascular surgeon specializes in phlebectomies and that he did not consider himself an expert in phlebectomies, but as a family practice physician performing a phlebectomy, he would have been expected to conform to the same standard of care. As a result, the plaintiff retained a vascular surgeon as an expert witness to testify as to the standard of care for vascular surgeons and how the defendant deviated therefrom. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the expert testimony of the plaintiff’s vascular surgeon did not meet the criteria set forth in the Patients First Act. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, holding that the defendant was a specialist in family medicine. In applying Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 484-85 (2013), the Appellate Division held that regardless of the procedure and standard of care related thereto, a plaintiff’s expert must specialize in the same specialty as a defendant physician.

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2017. 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 © 2017 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}