A recent appellate court decision allows a patient’s lawsuit against a medical center to proceed, after the patient claimed he suffered serious injuries due to improper care during his hospitalization. The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division released its opinion on March 5, 2026, following an appeal by St. Joseph’s University Medical Center regarding orders issued by the Law Division in Passaic County.
The complaint was filed by Todd Jones on August 5, 2024, against St. Joseph’s University Medical Center and unnamed physicians, nurses, and other individuals. Jones alleges professional negligence, ordinary negligence, and vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
According to court documents, Jones was admitted through the defendant’s emergency department on August 9, 2022, with worsening shortness of breath related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and pneumonia. During his stay, an intravenous (IV) line was inserted into his right upper arm for diagnostic imaging purposes. Five days later, Jones developed a hematoma in his right upper extremity due to IV infiltration. He subsequently experienced significant anemia and persistent hypotension, which led to further complications including additional hematomas and required surgical intervention for blood clot removal. He was discharged on September 7, 2022.
Jones claims that St. Joseph’s failed to properly place and monitor the IV line, did not respond promptly to signs of hematoma formation, failed to adjust anticoagulation therapy appropriately, and did not admit him to intensive care when needed.
On August 29, 2024, Jones submitted an Affidavit of Merit (AOM) authored by Dr. Ramzy H. Rimawi—board-certified in internal medicine, infectious diseases, and critical care medicine—who stated: “Based upon the review of the medical records provided to me and also based on my education, training[,] and experience in the field of internal medicine, it is my opinion with a reasonable degree of medical probability that the care provided to [plaintiff] by a physician deviated from acceptable professional standards of care in the treatment of this patient and this deviation was the proximate cause of his injuries.”
St. Joseph’s responded on September 26, 2024 with an answer and demanded an expert report within sixty days or threatened dismissal. A Ferreira conference took place on October 15, 2024; at that time plaintiff’s counsel indicated they were still seeking complete medical records from defendant in order to identify all treating providers involved in Jones’s care.
Defendant’s counsel acknowledged receipt of the AOM but objected that it was too general—a “blanket” affidavit failing to specify which physicians or nurses may have been negligent—and argued it did not meet statutory requirements under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26 through -29.
Plaintiff continued requesting complete records and a list of treating providers; defendant produced over four thousand pages on December 3, 2024 but plaintiff said this did not include a provider list. On January 29, 2025 defendant moved for dismissal with prejudice based on alleged non-compliance with AOM requirements within the statutory timeframe.
In opposition to dismissal Jones argued that objections were not timely raised by defendant during prior proceedings or conferences; he also cited delays caused by incomplete record production from defendant as justification for any deficiencies or delays in identifying specific providers responsible for his injuries.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion on May 28, 2025 after oral argument—finding substantial compliance with AOM requirements because plaintiff had served an affidavit soon after filing suit and provided sufficient notice about his claim even if individual actors were not named specifically.
Defendant then sought reconsideration but this was denied by another judge on July 18, 2025 who found no new information warranting reversal; again citing substantial compliance doctrine as well as lack of prejudice against defendant since they had been notified about classes of professionals allegedly involved (physicians/nurses/staff).
On appeal St. Joseph’s argued again that failure to name specific professionals rendered Dr. Rimawi’s affidavit deficient under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27; however the appellate panel affirmed lower courts’ rulings citing Supreme Court precedent (Moschella ex rel Est. Of Lowe v Hackensack Meridian Health Jersey Shore Univ Med Ctr., among others) holding that reference to unnamed employees can suffice where individuals cannot be identified at outset—as long as class/profession is specified—and technical defects should not defeat valid claims if there is substantial compliance providing reasonable notice.
The appellate panel concluded that Jones met substantial compliance factors: lack of prejudice toward defense; diligent efforts made seeking records; general fulfillment of statute purpose; reasonable notice given via affidavits/opinions; reasonable explanation for inability to strictly comply due primarily to access issues beyond plaintiff’s control.
Ultimately both motions—to dismiss for noncompliance and for reconsideration—were denied at trial level and affirmed on appeal under abuse-of-discretion standard since no new arguments or evidence were presented by defendant justifying reversal.
Attorneys representing St. Joseph’s University Medical Center are Evelyn Cadorin Farkas (of counsel) and Robert G. Veech III from Farkas & Donohue LLC; attorneys representing Todd Jones are Tiffany A Friend (of counsel/on brief) from Friend Law Group LLC. The case is docketed as A-0038-25.
Source: A003825_Jones_v_St_Josephs_University_Medical_Center_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf