On January 18, 2022, New Jersey’s Supreme Court published a decision in the matter of Lapsley v. Twp. of Sparta, A-69/69-20 (Jan. 18, 2022), determining that an injury sustained by the plaintiff on a parking lot adjacent to her place of work was a “compensable” injury in the state’s workers’ compensation system – and thus, was not able to be raised in a liability action due to the “exclusive remedy” provision in New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”).

On December 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a significant decision in the matter of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, holding that Pennsylvania’s general jurisdiction statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5301(a)(2), which conveys general jurisdiction over foreign corporations who register to do business in Pennsylvania, is unconstitutional.

On December 16, 2021, New Jersey’s Appellate Division issued a published decision in E.C., a minor, et al. v. Leo Inglima-Donaldson, et al., A-2752-20, clarifying the application of New Jersey’s newly adopted standard for public entity liability in cases of claims alleging childhood sexual abuse.

Please be advised the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a notice on November 18, 2021 that permits virtual court proceedings in New Jersey after the pandemic ends. The Court noted “attorneys, parties, and judges have praised the reduced time and cost associated with virtual proceedings for brief and straightforward matters.” The Court invited comments from the bar on how to conduct court proceedings based upon their experiences during the pandemic. It was noted there were fewer scheduling conflicts and requests for continuances. Others highlighted the value of bringing parties together in person at certain critical junctures, including settlement conferences and proceedings that involve especially serious penalties or consequences. Chief Justice Rabner stated “it is important to balance consistency and predictability in court operations with the need to exercise discretion based on the facts and circumstances of individual cases.”

A plaintiff bringing an action against a public entity under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1, et seq., is required to serve a pre-suit notice of any such claim within ninety days of the claim’s accrual. N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. Failure to timely file a notice of tort claim is fatal to a claim, with limited exceptions. However, courts may extend the time for a claimant to serve a late notice of tort claim for up to twelve months from the claim’s accrual, only upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances justifying why the notice could not have been issued within ninety days. N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. The purpose of this stringent notice requirement is to expedite incident investigation in furtherance of pre-litigation settlement, and to allow the public entity to prepare a colorable defense. Wood v. County of Burlington, 302 N.J. Super. 371 (App. Div. 1997).

McGivney, Kluger, Clark & Intoccia is excited to announce that Pooja Patel, Meagan Dean and Trish Wilson have been elevated to the firm’s Management Committee. These three Partners are not only influential leaders in their individual capacity, but also successfully handle substantial caseloads and manage departments and offices. We believe they will add significant value to the current and future successful path of this firm.

McGivney, Kluger, Clark & Intoccia, P.C. is Proud to Announce New Outstanding Additions to our Asbestos & Talc Trial Team!

The New Jersey Appellate Division issued a decision on March 2, 2021 in Hrymoc v. Ethicon, Inc., Nos. A-5151-17, A-1083-18, 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 337 (App. Div. Mar. 2, 2021) that may substantially impact the landscape of litigation for medical device manufacturers in New Jersey. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded two plaintiffs’ verdicts in New Jersey pelvic mesh multi-county litigation, and held that the trial courts committed reversible error by excluding all evidence related to FDA 510(k) clearance, overturning two verdicts totaling over $83 million dollars in the process. The decision makes clear that the wholesale exclusion of evidence related to FDA 510(k) clearance denies manufacturers the right to a fair trial.

In Fain v. Benak, 205 Conn. App. 734 (2021) the Connecticut Appellate Court recently addressed the application of the “unavoidable accident doctrine” in situations where there is no evidence of a medical emergency.

On Friday, September 24, 2021, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of Defendant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) in the Ellen Kleiner matter. The following Monday, September 27, 2021, a St. Louis, Missouri jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of J&J in the multi-plaintiff matter of Giese, et al.