Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Casinelli v. Manglapusgreen2 sentences2020See Casinelli v. Manglapus, 181 N.J. 354, 364-66 (2004) (explaining that the physician certification requirement of AICRA "provide[s] evidence that a plaintiff's claim is meritorious in that he or she has, in fact, sustained an injury that qualifies for the recovery of non-economic damages under the revised AICRA verbal threshold," and when "a plaintiff is unwilling or unable to 4 On May 11, 2018, plaintiff was granted summary judgment against defendant on the issue of liability only. 2008She relied on Casinelli v. Manglapus, 181 N.J. 354 , 858 A. 2d 1113 (2004), in which we stated that failure to satisfy the physician-certification requirement in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a) within the sixty-day statutory window does not necessitate dismissal of a plaintiff's cause of action. | 1 | 2 |
Portee v. Jaffeegreen2 sentences2008See ibid. 2008See ibid. | 1 | 1 |
New Jersey Coalition of Health Care Professionals, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Banking & Insurancegreen1 sentence2003See NJ Coalition of Health Care Prof'ls, Inc. v. DOBI, 323 N.J.Super. 207, 215-20 , 732 A. 2d 1063 (App.Div.) (tracing history of the New Jersey no-fault laws and noting that "[f]rom the inception of this no-fault scheme, the Legislature intended to eliminate minor personal-injury-automobilenegligence actions from the court system in order to achieve economy and provide lower insurance premiums to the public"), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 485 , 744 A. 2d 1208 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
NJ COLALITION OF HEALTH CARE v. Dobigreen1 sentence2003See NJ Coalition of Health Care Prof'ls, Inc. v. DOBI, 323 N.J.Super. 207, 215-20 , 732 A. 2d 1063 (App.Div.) (tracing history of the New Jersey no-fault laws and noting that "[f]rom the inception of this no-fault scheme, the Legislature intended to eliminate minor personal-injury-automobilenegligence actions from the court system in order to achieve economy and provide lower insurance premiums to the public"), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 485 , 744 A. 2d 1208 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Watts v. Camaligan
green
2 sentences2004In Watts, supra, the Appellate Division held that the failure to comply timely with the physician certification requirement of AICRA warranted dismissal without prejudice. 344 N.J.Super. at 468 , 782 A. 2d 479 . 2004In Watts, supra, the Appellate Division held that the failure to comply timely with the physician certification requirement of AICRA warranted dismissal without prejudice. 344 N.J.Super. at 468 , 782 A. 2d 479 . | 4 | 2002–2004 |
Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp.
green
2 sentences2004Our analysis is consistent with R. 4:6-2(e), Failure to State a Claim, and the holding in Printing Mart v. Sharp Electronics, 116 N.J. 739, 772 , 563 A. 2d 31 (1989), that, "barring any other impediment such as a statute of limitations," a dismissal without prejudice should ordinarily be granted in response to a successful motion for failure to state a claim. 2003Here, the impediment to future causes of action created by the Legislature was the revised verbal threshold, not the failure to file a physician certification. [ Ibid. (emphasis added).] In contrasting the physician certification requirement in AICRA with the Affidavit of Merit Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26 to -29, we concluded that "the physician certification requirement in AICRA focuses not on the heart of the cause of action, i.e., negligence and injury, but instead is limited to the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries existing at the time that the certification is authored." Id. at 46 | 3 | 2001–2004 |
Konopka v. Foster
green
2 sentences2004Noting that the two-fold purpose of the physician certification requirement was to acquaint the defendant with the nature and severity of the plaintiff's alleged injuries and to prevent fraud, id. at 229 , 812 A. 2d 363 , the court held that the service of a mere report, as opposed to a certification, did not demonstrate general compliance with the purpose of the statute. 2004Noting that the two-fold purpose of the physician certification requirement was to acquaint the defendant with the nature and severity of the plaintiff's alleged injuries and to prevent fraud, id. at 229 , 812 A. 2d 363 , the court held that the service of a mere report, as opposed to a certification, did not demonstrate general compliance with the purpose of the statute. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Casinelli v. Manglapus
green
2 sentences2004Casinelli v. Manglapus, 357 N.J.Super. 398 , 815 A. 2d 524 (2003). 2004Casinelli v. Manglapus, 357 N.J.Super. 398 , 815 A. 2d 524 (2003). | 1 | 2004–2004 |