Bonnie Marie Cottrell v. Nathan Holtzberg, M.D.

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: July 1, 2024
• Docket: A-2577-22/A-3261-22
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2577-22 A-3261-22

BONNIE MARIE COTTRELL, and CHRISTOPHER DANIEL LETRENT, Co-Executors of the Estate of MARYANN COTTRELL, deceased,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

NATHAN HOLTZBERG, M.D., and ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE OF CENTRAL JERSEY, P.A.,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

KIMBALL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER SOUTHERN CAMPUS FOUNDATION, INC., BARRY GORDON, M.D., OCEAN COUNTY INTERNAL MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, P.C., BHARAT PATEL, M.D., ALEX LANGMAN, M.D., MEDICAL RADIOLOGY GROUP, P.A., BRUCE MONASTERSKY, M.D., NEUROLOGICAL ASSOCIATES OF OCEAN COUNTY, P.A., FOUNTAIN VIEW CARE CENTER, SHORE HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., SATUYENDRA SINGH, M.D., NORTH ATLANTIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, ST. BARNABAS MEDICAL CENTER, ST. BARNABAS CORPORATION, BARNABAS HEALTH, INC., HARHPAL SINGH, M.D., NORTH JERSEY BRAIN & SPINE CENTER, SAIKIRAN MURTHY, D.O., OTAKAR HUBSCHMANN, M.D., 1351 OLD FREEHOLD ROAD OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a BEY LEA VILLAGE CARE CENTER; SOMC MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., d/b/a OCEAN COUNTY FAMILY CARE; COMPLETE CARE AT BEY LEA LLC; SUSAN BELTRAN, R.N.; and ELIZABETH NOLLER, R.N.,

Defendants-Respondents,

RAHUL PAWAR, M.D., ALEXANDER B. KING, M.D., ROY J. FERTAKOS, M.D., and IMAGING CONSULTANTS OF ESSEX, P.A.,

Defendants. ________________________________

BONNIE MARIE COTTRELL, and CHRISTOPHER DANIEL LETRENT, Co-Executors

A-2577-22 2 of the Estate of MARYANN COTTRELL, deceased,

NATHAN HOLTZBERG, M.D., ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE OF CENTRAL JERSEY, P.A., KIMBALL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., BHARAT PATEL, M.D., ALEX LANGMAN, M.D., MEDICAL RADIOLOGY GROUP, P.A., BRUCE MONASTERSKY, M.D., NEUROLOGICAL ASSOCIATES OF OCEAN COUNTY, P.A., FOUNTAIN VIEW CARE CENTER, SHORE HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., SATUYENDRA SINGH, M.D., HARSHPAL SINGH, M.D., NORTH JERSEY BRAIN & SPINE CENTER, and OTAKAR HUBSCHMANN, M.D.,

BARRY GORDON, M.D., and OCEAN COUNTY INTERNAL MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, P.C.,

MONMOUTH MEDICAL

A-2577-22 3 CENTER SOUTHERN CAMPUS FOUNDATION, INC., NORTH ATLANTIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, ST. BARNABAS MEDICAL CENTER, ST. BARNABAS CORPORATION, BARNABAS HEALTH, INC., RAHUL PAWAR, M.D., ALEXANDER B. KING, M.D., ROY J. FERTAKOS, M.D., IMAGING CONSULTANTS OF ESSEX, P.A., SAIKIRAN MURTHY, D.O., ELIZABETH NOLLER, R.N.; and SUSAN BELTRAN, R.N. 1,

Submitted January 23, 2024 – Decided July 1, 2024

Before Judges Sumners and Smith.

On appeal from interlocutory orders of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-5557-16.

Buckley Theroux Kline & Cooley, LLC, attorneys for appellants in A-2577-22 (Tess Jennifer Kline and Michael Paul Opacki, on the briefs).

Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP, attorneys for appellants in A-3261-22 (William Buckley and Evan B. Magnone, on the briefs).

Messa & Associates, PC, attorneys for respondents Bonnie Marie Cottrell and Christopher Daniel LeTrent

1 Improperly pled as Susan Beltra, R.N.

A-2577-22 4 in A-2577-22 (Irene M. McLafferty and Alaina A. Gregorio, on the brief).

Messa & Associates, PC, attorneys for respondents Bonnie Marie Cottrell and Christopher Daniel LeTrent in A-3261-22 (Irene M. McLafferty and Alaina A. Gregorio, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

On leave granted in these back-to-back appeals, we consider whether the

motion court correctly applied the same-specialty requirement of the New Jersey

Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act (PFA), N.J.S.A.

2A:53A-37 to -42. Plaintiffs Bonnie Marie Cottrell (Bonnie)2 and Christopher

Daniel LeTrent, Co-Executors of the Estate of Maryann Cottrell (Cottrell),

deceased, allege defendants Nathan Holtzberg, M.D., a pain management

specialist, and Orthopaedic Institute of Central Jersey, P.A. (collectively Dr.

Holtzberg) violated the standard of care in reviewing Cottrell's magnetic

resonance imaging (MRI) scans which led to a failure to diagnose her medical

condition. Plaintiffs allege that Barry Gordon, M.D., an internist, and Ocean

County Internal Medicine Associates, P.C. (collectively Dr. Gordon), violated

the standard of care in reviewing Cottrell's MRI scans which led to a failure to

2 We refer to Bonnie Marie Cottrell by her first name to avoid confusion because she has the same last name as the deceased. We mean no disrespect.

A-2577-22 5 diagnose her medical condition and prematurely release her from the hospital

without diagnosing the cause of her severe pain. In support of their claims

against both doctors, plaintiffs rely upon the expert opinion of Terrance Baker,

M.D, who specializes in family and emergency medicine.

In Docket No. A-2577-22, the court denied Dr. Holtzberg's request to bar

Dr. Baker's opinion that Dr. Holtzberg was negligent. We affirm because we

agree with the court's finding the PFA's same-specialty requirement did not

apply to Dr. Baker's opinion of Dr. Holtzberg because the opinion was not

tethered to Dr. Holtzberg's standard of care as a pain medicine specialist but

generally as a medical doctor.

In Docket No. A-3261-22, the court denied Dr. Gordon's request to bar

Dr. Baker's opinion that Dr. Gordon was negligent. We reverse because under

the PFA, Dr. Baker is not a board-certified internist, and he cannot opine that

Dr. Gordon deviated from the standard of care of an internist.

I.

The motion record provides the following relevant allegations, facts, and

procedural history.

Cottrell's Medical Treatment and Death

A-2577-22 6 On August 30, 2014, an emergency room physician admitted Cottrell into

Kimball Medical Center due to her "acute bilateral leg pain" whenever she

moved her legs. Two days later, Dr. Gordon, a board-certified internist with

extensive practice experience in internal and emergency medicine, examined

Cottrell for a possible fungal infection but found none. Cottrell was diagnosed

with rhabdomyolysis, a muscle injury that released chemicals into her

bloodstream.

An MRI of Cottrell's lumbar spine was taken on September 2. Dr.

Holtzberg, Cottrell's longtime pain management doctor who completed an

anesthesiology residency and pain management fellowship, reviewed the MRI

scans, as did other doctors. Dr. Holtzberg found the scans showed "significant

artifact" but "no obvious abnormal masses or lesions" on Cottrell's spine. In

examining Cottrell, he "noted difficulty in testing her motor strength due to

significant pain with movement." Despite "acknowledg[ing] the motion artifact

existing on the [poor-quality] MRI," he concluded the MRI results were

inconsistent with Cottrell's previous symptoms and "recommended additional

pain medication and acute rehabilitation." After Cottrell was hospitalized for

six days, Dr. Gordon discharged her to a rehabilitation center.

A-2577-22 7 Over the next four years, Cottrell's suffered numerous medical

complications resulting in frequent hospital and nursing home stays. She died

on November 8, 2018.

Cottrell's Lawsuit

In September 2016, prior to her passing, Cottrell filed a medical

malpractice complaint raising negligence and corporate negligence claims

against Drs. Holtzberg and Gordon as well as several other healthcare providers

not involved in this appeal. After Cottrell's passing, her children Bonnie and

LeTrent filed an amended complaint, suing as the co-executors of her estate.

Cottrell v. Holtzberg, 468 N.J. Super. 59, 66 (App. Div. 2021).

As to the doctors, it is essentially alleged that they breached their

respective duties of care by not taking the appropriate action upon viewing

Cottrell's inadequate MRI scans leading to misdiagnosis of her medical

condition contributing to paralysis and other medical conditions. Dr. Baker,

board certified in family practice, emergency medicine, and forensic medicine,

rendered expert reports asserting Cottrell's healthcare providers negligently

cared for her at the rehabilitation center she entered after her August-September

2014 emergency room visit and hospitalization without mentioning Drs.

Holtzberg and Gordon. At his deposition, Dr. Baker opined Cottrell's

A-2577-22 8 debilitating leg pain was a "true medical emergency." He stated the MRI of her

lumbar spine was "limited due to motion artifacts," making it "an unusable

study," and "[t]he standard of care required . . . a specific focus [CAT scan], or

myelogram be performed." Without rescanning Cottrell's spine, according to

Dr. Baker, her physicians could not have properly determined if there was "a

structural basis of the spine . . . explain[ing] [her] . . . disproportionate pain

symptoms associated with changes in motor function and sensation of both

lower legs." Dr. Baker did not specifically identify Dr. Holtzberg, but he stated

Dr. Gordon discharged Cottrell to the rehabilitation center from the hospital

without a conclusive diagnosis of the severe back pain preventing her from

walking.

Drs. Holtzberg and Gordon filed separate motions to bar Dr. Baker from

offering standard of care opinions. 3 Dr. Holtzberg argued the PFA barred Dr.

Baker's opinion regarding his care of Cottrell because Dr. Baker, a family and

emergency medicine physician, and Dr. Holtzberg, a pain medicine specialist,

did not share specialties. Dr. Gordon also argued Baker did not share specialties

with him, an internist, and, moreover, his role during Cottrell's 2014

3 Other defendants filed similar motions, but we do not discuss them as they are not relevant to these appeals. A-2577-22 9 hospitalization "was [as] the attendant for [her], after she was admitted to the

hospital" and as the doctor who signed off on her discharge from the hospital.

The court, without citing any law, rejected these contentions and entered orders

denying the motions for reasons explained in a single oral decision. The court

found that Baker's lack of similar specialty with Drs. Holtzberg and Gordon was

insignificant, reasoning "[i]f you have an MRI that's unclear, you should have

another MRI done. So you have a clear MRI. . . . [I]t's common sense" and

"[e]very doctor[ is] taught that in medical school," like learning when "you have

to take somebody's blood pressure again."

II.

"To prove medical malpractice . . . 'a plaintiff must present expert

testimony establishing (1) the applicable standard of care; (2) a deviation from

that standard of care; and (3) that the deviation proximately caused the

injury.'" Haviland v. Lourdes Med. Ctr. of Burlington Cty., Inc., 250 N.J. 368,

384 (2022) (quoting Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 478 (2013)). The PFA

sets forth the required qualifications for a medical-malpractice plaintiff's

testifying expert. For cases involving a defendant doctor who practiced and

rendered treatment within a recognized specialty, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(a)

provides:

A-2577-22 10 If the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered is a specialist or subspecialist recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties [(ABMS)] or the American Osteopathic Association and the care or treatment at issue involves that specialty or subspecialty recognized by the [ABMS] or the American Osteopathic Association, the person providing the testimony shall have specialized at the time of the occurrence that is the basis for the action in the same specialty or subspecialty . . . as the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered . . . .

In the seminal case of Nicholas v. Mynster, our high court found "[t]he

apparent objective of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41 is to ensure that, when a defendant

physician is subject to a medical-malpractice action for treating a patient's

condition falling within his ABMS specialty, a challenging plaintiff's expert,

who is expounding on the standard of care, must practice in the same specialty."

213 N.J. at 486. Thus, under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(a), "[w]hen a physician is a

specialist and the basis of the malpractice action 'involves' the physician's

specialty, the challenging expert must practice in the same specialty," id. at 481-

82, and a plaintiff "cannot establish the standard of care through an expert who

does not practice in the same medical specialties as defendant physicians," id. at

A-2577-22 11 468.4 Nevertheless, the standard of medical care only involves a physician's

specialty when the physician "rendered treatment within" the specialty. Id. at

487. Thus, "[w]here the treatment at issue . . . is provided by a specialist but

does not involve the physician's specialty, the requirements for the qualification

of an expert to testify against a general practitioner," not the same-specialty

requirement, apply. Nicholas v. Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., 456 N.J. Super.

110, 119 n.6 (App. Div. 2018).

III.

Dr. Holtzberg argues the care he provided to Cottrell solely concerned his

pain medicine specialty, which is not Dr. Baker's specialty. He posits an MRI

scan "of poor quality to one physician may be perfectly acceptable to another."

As a pain medicine specialist, he asserts he interpreted Cottrell's MRI scans

differently from a physician with different credentials, as "[e]very specialty

reads imaging differently" based on "what the specific physician is looking for"

in the scans. He contends Dr. Baker lacks the qualifications to know "how a

[p]ain [m]anagement physician would review" MRI scans or what a pain

medicine specialist would have looked for in them.

4 The Court determined "there are no exceptions to that requirement other than the waiver provision of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(c)." Nicholas, 213 N.J. at 482.

A-2577-22 12 Based on our de novo review of the court's order denying Dr. Holtzberg's

motion to bar Dr. Baker's testimony under the PFA, we are unpersuaded by Dr.

Holtzberg's arguments. See Pfannenstein v. Surrey, 475 N.J. Super. 83, 95 (App.

Div.) (holding we review de novo a trial court decision regarding "compliance

with the same-specialty requirement of the PFA"), certif. denied, 254 N.J. 517

(2023). The PFA same-specialty requirement did not apply to Dr. Holtzberg's

care of Cottrell when he failed to order new MRI scans. Dr. Holtzberg offers

no support for his "bare conclusory assertion[]" that as a pain medicine

specialist, he views scans differently from other physicians. See Brae Asset

Fund, L.P. v. Newman, 327 N.J. Super. 129, 134 (App. Div. 1999). Dr. Baker

did not opine that based on a pain medicine specialist's standard of care, Dr.

Holtzberg misinterpreted Cottrell's MRI scans or overlooked clues that a more

thorough review of the scans would have revealed. He merely stated Dr.

Holtzberg, like the other physicians who noticed the artifact in her scans, should

have ordered a new MRI, or a CAT scan or myelogram be performed, instead of

relying upon the inadequate MRI scans. In Dr. Baker's opinion, Dr. Holtzberg

needed nothing more than standard medical training to know whether the scans

were clear enough to properly diagnose Cottrell's complaints of pain. Assessing

image clarity does not "go[] to the heart of" pain medicine. The pain medicine

A-2577-22 13 specialty focuses on "diagnos[ing] and treat[ing] patients experiencing problems

with acute or chronic pain . . . and coordinat[ing] care needs with other

specialists." American Board of Anesthesiology, Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties,

https://www.abms.org/board/american-board-of-anesthesiology/#aba-pm (last

visited June 19, 2024). Because Dr. Holtzberg's failure to order new scans did

not fall within his specialty, the PFA's same-specialty requirement is

inapplicable to Dr. Baker's evaluation of Dr. Holtzberg. Cf. Nicholas, 213 N.J.

at 487. Accordingly, we affirm the court's order denying Dr. Holtzberg's motion

to bar Dr. Baker's expert opinion that Dr. Holtzberg was negligent in caring for

Cottrell during her emergency room visit and hospitalization in September 2014.

IV.

Dr. Gordon argues Dr. Baker cannot offer standard of care testimony

against him because Dr. Baker does not share his board certification of internal

medicine. He cites Nicholas for its principle that the same-specialty requirement

bars a doctor board-certified in internal medicine from testifying against doctors

who are board-certified in emergency medicine or family medicine, even though

physicians trained in any of those areas may have sufficient training to treat the

plaintiff. 213 N.J. at 487-88. Dr. Gordon adds that Dr. Baker's deposition

testimony addressed the standard of care Dr. Gordon should have exercised both

A-2577-22 14 during Cottrell's hospital stay, including but not limited to Cottrell's MRI, and

when he discharged her from the hospital. Even though Dr. Baker did not name

Dr. Gordon when describing the conduct of the physicians who treated Cottrell

in the hospital, he opined Cottrell should not have been discharged to the

rehabilitation center before the physicians identified the cause of her leg pain.

Viewing Dr. Gordon's arguments through the same lens that we

considered Dr. Holtzman's arguments, we conclude the motion court should not

have denied Dr Gordon's motion to bar Dr. Baker's expert opinion. Unlike with

Dr. Holtzberg, the record is not clear if Dr. Gordon ever saw, much less

analyzed, Cottrell's MRI scans. Hence, there is no basis for plaintiffs to claim

Dr. Gordon should have ordered further testing due to the inadequate MRI scans.

Dr. Gordon's interactions with Cottrell appear to have all occurred either before

or after the MRI was ordered. He examined Cottrell shortly after she was first

admitted and signed off on her discharge to the rehabilitation center. Relevantly,

plaintiffs contend Dr. Gordon: (1) observed "Cottrell would scream with pain

at attempts to minimally lift her legs or bend her knees" but did not do enough

to quickly find out why; and (2) discharged her before anyone determined the

source of Cottrell's leg pain.

A-2577-22 15 Dr. Gordon's interactions with Cottrell fall squarely within the broad

scope of internal medicine. Internal medicine "incorporates an understanding

of disease prevention, wellness, substance abuse, mental health and effective

treatment of common problems" involving many body parts, with an aim to

"provide[] long-term, comprehensive care[,] . . . managing both common and

complex illnesses of adolescents, adults and the elderly." American Board of

Internal Medicine, Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties,

https://www.abms.org/board/american-board-of-internal-medicine/#abim-im

(last visited June 20, 2024). Dr. Gordon was in the same position as the second

doctor in Nicholas, providing follow-up care to a patient with emergent

symptoms once the patient was admitted into the hospital. 231 N.J. at 470, 487.

He persuasively argues plaintiffs can only obtain standard of care testimony

against him from another board-certified internist. See Pfannenstein, 475 N.J.

Super. at 102-03. Because Dr. Baker is not a board-certified internist, he cannot

opine that Dr. Holtzberg deviated from the standard of care of an internist.

N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(a).

Before the motion court, plaintiffs briefly alluded to the fact that Drs.

Baker and Gordon share an emergency medicine specialty. Under the PFA's

plain language, Dr. Baker could provide standard of care opinions against Dr.

A-2577-22 16 Gordon if Dr. Gordon was acting as an emergency medicine physician rather

than an internist. See DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005). However,

given neither party briefed this issue on appeal, it is waived, and plaintiffs

cannot in the future seek to offer Dr. Baker's testimony against Dr. Gordon on

this basis. See N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Alloway Township, 438 N.J. Super.

501, 505 n.2 (App. Div. 2015) (noting "[a]n issue that is not briefed is deemed

waived").

Accordingly, we reverse the court's order denying Dr. Gordon's motion to

bar Dr. Baker's expert opinion that Dr. Gordon was negligent in caring for

Cottrell during her emergency room visit and hospitalization in August-

September 2014.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part. We do not retain jurisdiction.

A-2577-22 17