NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3723-22 A-3724-22 A-3725-22
HOLLY JOY WALKER, as guardian ad litem of STEVEN THOMAS WALKER, a minor, HOLLY WALKER, individually, and STEVEN WALKER, individually,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, INC., INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a LABCORP, DEARON TUFANKJIAN, D.O., DOMINIC MARCHIANO, M.D., and ROBERT DEBBS, D.O.,
Defendants-Respondents,
and
MELISSA SUAREZ, D.O. and SAMANTHA DELUCA, D.O.,
Defendants-Appellants,
LABCORP, INC.,
Defendant. ______________________________
HOLLY JOY WALKER, as guardian ad litem of STEVEN THOMAS WALKER, a minor, HOLLY WALKER, individually, and STEVEN WALKER, individually,
INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, INC., INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK MEDICAL GROUP P.C., and INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTERS, INC.,
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a LABCORP, DEARON TUFANKJIAN, D.O., DOMINIC MARCHIANO, M.D., MELISSA SUAREZ, D.O., SAMANTHA DELUCA, D.O.,
A-3723-22 2 and ROBERT DEBBS, D.O.,
HOLLY JOY WALKER, as guardian ad litem of STEVEN THOMAS WALKER, a minor, HOLLY WALKER, individually, and STEVEN WALKER, individually,
INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, INC., INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a LABCORP, DOMINIC MARCHIANO, M.D., MELISSA SUAREZ, D.O., SAMANTHA DELUCA, D.O., and ROBERT DEBBS, D.O.,
A-3723-22 3 DEARON TUFANKJIAN, D.O.,
Defendant-Appellant,
Argued (A-3723-22) and Submitted (A-3724-22 and A- 3725-22) February 6, 2024 – Decided February 27, 2024
Before Judges Sumners and Perez Friscia.
On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-1629-23.
Beth Ann Hardy argued the cause for appellants Samantha DeLuca, D.O., and Melissa Suarez, D.O., in A-3723-22 (Farkas & Donohue, LLC, attorneys; Evelyn Cadorin Farkas, of counsel; Robert Gerald Veech, III, on the briefs).
Parker McCay P.A., attorneys for appellants Inspira Health Network, Inc., Inspira Health Network Medical Group, P.C., and Inspira Medical Centers, Inc., in A- 3724-22 (Lora M. Foley and Andrew S. Winegar, on the briefs).
Ruprecht, Hart, Ricciardulli & Sherman, LLP, attorneys for appellant Dearon Tufankjian, D.O., in A- 3725-22 (Patricia E. Voorhis, on the briefs; Michael R. Ricciardulli, of counsel and on the briefs).
A-3723-22 4 Christina Vassiliou Harvey argued the cause for respondents Holly Joy Walker, as guardian ad litem of Steven Thomas Walker, Holly Walker, individually, and Steven Walker, individually (Lomurro Munson, LLC, attorneys; Jonathan H. Lomurro, of counsel; Christina Vassiliou Harvey, of counsel and on the briefs; Jeffrey John Niesz, on the briefs).
Ellen Nunno Corbo argued the cause for respondents Dominic Marchiano, M.D., and Robert Debbs, D.O. (Burns White LLC, attorneys; James A. Young, of counsel; Ellen Nunno Corbo, on the briefs).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs Holly Walker and Steven Walker, individually, and Holly Joy
Walker, as guardian ad litem of Steven Thomas Walker, filed a medical
malpractice action alleging defendants negligently treated Holly 1 and the unborn
Steven Thomas by failing to properly diagnose Steven Thomas' congenital
disorder or advise Holly and Steven there was an "extremely high risk" that
Steven Thomas would be born with the congenital disorder. Plaintiffs live in
Salem County but filed the action in Essex County, where defendant Laboratory
Corporation of America (LabCorp) has locations. See R. 4:3-2(a)(3) (venue
"shall be laid in the county in which the cause of action arose, or in which any
1 Because plaintiffs have the same last name, we refer to them by their first names for convenience and to avoid confusion. We mean no disrespect.
A-3723-22 5 party to the action resides at the time of its commencement, or in which the
summons was served on a nonresident defendant"). The other defendants,
Melissa Suarez, D.O., Samantha DeLuca, D.O., Inspira Health Network, Inc.,
Inspira Health Network Medical Group, P.C., Inspira Medical Centers, Inc.,
Dearon Tufankjian, D.O., Dominic Marchiano, M.D., and Robert Debbs, D.O.,
all work or live in or near Gloucester County, which borders Salem County. All
the medical services related to plaintiffs' allegations were rendered in Gloucester
County.
Through several motions and cross-motions, defendants 2 sought to
transfer venue to Gloucester County pursuant to Rule 4:3-3(a). The trial court
denied the requests in three separate orders, accompanied with separate but
essentially identical written decisions. Citing Rule 1:1-2(a), which allows the
relaxation of a procedural rule when strict adherence "would result in an
injustice," the court analyzed defendants' motions under the doctrine of forum
non conveniens, which allows a court to exercise discretion to "determine
whether transfer of the action is proper when an alternative venue exists."
Applying the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Gulf Oil
2 Hereafter, references to defendants do not include LabCorp, which is not a party to this appeal because it neither moved to change venue nor participated in the motions before the trial court. A-3723-22 6 Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947), and adopted by our Supreme Court in
Gore v. U.S. Steel Corp., 15 N.J. 301 (1954), the court found transfer to
Gloucester County unwarranted.
The court determined that under Rule 4:3-2, venue was properly laid in
Essex County because LabCorp "does business throughout . . . New Jersey,
including multiple locations in Essex County." Yet, the court recognized that
Rule 4:3-3(a) provides there may be "a change of venue . . . for the convenience
of the parties and witnesses in the interest of justice." Considering the doctrine
of forum non conveniens, "an equitable principle that may be invoked once
jurisdiction and venue are established," the court cited Kurzke v. Nissan Motor
Corp. in U.S.A., 164 N.J. 159, 162 (2000), for the proposition that the doctrine
"allows a court to decline jurisdiction when it would be inappropriate to try the
case in the forum selected by the plaintiff." The court scrutinized the respective
case load statistics of Essex and Gloucester Counties. The court acknowledged
that from the commencement of the lawsuit through the pendency of the
motions, our Chief Justice had suspended civil trials in Vicinage 15, which
A-3723-22 7 includes Gloucester and Salem Counties, due to the critical shortage of judges
there.3
Considering the parties' arguments and the law, the court denied the
motions. Yet, the court stated its ruling might have been otherwise had civil
trials in Gloucester not been suspended at the time. The court noted:
Gloucester County's current civil trial moratorium must take precedence. If Gloucester County did not have a civil trial moratorium, the [c]ourt would seriously consider relaxing the rules regarding venue.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-3723-22 A-3724-22 A-3725-22
HOLLY JOY WALKER, as guardian ad litem of STEVEN THOMAS WALKER, a minor, HOLLY WALKER, individually, and STEVEN WALKER, individually,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, INC., INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a LABCORP, DEARON TUFANKJIAN, D.O., DOMINIC MARCHIANO, M.D., and ROBERT DEBBS, D.O.,
Defendants-Respondents,
and
MELISSA SUAREZ, D.O. and SAMANTHA DELUCA, D.O.,
Defendants-Appellants,
LABCORP, INC.,
Defendant. ______________________________
HOLLY JOY WALKER, as guardian ad litem of STEVEN THOMAS WALKER, a minor, HOLLY WALKER, individually, and STEVEN WALKER, individually,
INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, INC., INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK MEDICAL GROUP P.C., and INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTERS, INC.,
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a LABCORP, DEARON TUFANKJIAN, D.O., DOMINIC MARCHIANO, M.D., MELISSA SUAREZ, D.O., SAMANTHA DELUCA, D.O.,
A-3723-22 2 and ROBERT DEBBS, D.O.,
HOLLY JOY WALKER, as guardian ad litem of STEVEN THOMAS WALKER, a minor, HOLLY WALKER, individually, and STEVEN WALKER, individually,
INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, INC., INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a LABCORP, DOMINIC MARCHIANO, M.D., MELISSA SUAREZ, D.O., SAMANTHA DELUCA, D.O., and ROBERT DEBBS, D.O.,
A-3723-22 3 DEARON TUFANKJIAN, D.O.,
Defendant-Appellant,
Argued (A-3723-22) and Submitted (A-3724-22 and A- 3725-22) February 6, 2024 – Decided February 27, 2024
Before Judges Sumners and Perez Friscia.
On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-1629-23.
Beth Ann Hardy argued the cause for appellants Samantha DeLuca, D.O., and Melissa Suarez, D.O., in A-3723-22 (Farkas & Donohue, LLC, attorneys; Evelyn Cadorin Farkas, of counsel; Robert Gerald Veech, III, on the briefs).
Parker McCay P.A., attorneys for appellants Inspira Health Network, Inc., Inspira Health Network Medical Group, P.C., and Inspira Medical Centers, Inc., in A- 3724-22 (Lora M. Foley and Andrew S. Winegar, on the briefs).
Ruprecht, Hart, Ricciardulli & Sherman, LLP, attorneys for appellant Dearon Tufankjian, D.O., in A- 3725-22 (Patricia E. Voorhis, on the briefs; Michael R. Ricciardulli, of counsel and on the briefs).
A-3723-22 4 Christina Vassiliou Harvey argued the cause for respondents Holly Joy Walker, as guardian ad litem of Steven Thomas Walker, Holly Walker, individually, and Steven Walker, individually (Lomurro Munson, LLC, attorneys; Jonathan H. Lomurro, of counsel; Christina Vassiliou Harvey, of counsel and on the briefs; Jeffrey John Niesz, on the briefs).
Ellen Nunno Corbo argued the cause for respondents Dominic Marchiano, M.D., and Robert Debbs, D.O. (Burns White LLC, attorneys; James A. Young, of counsel; Ellen Nunno Corbo, on the briefs).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs Holly Walker and Steven Walker, individually, and Holly Joy
Walker, as guardian ad litem of Steven Thomas Walker, filed a medical
malpractice action alleging defendants negligently treated Holly 1 and the unborn
Steven Thomas by failing to properly diagnose Steven Thomas' congenital
disorder or advise Holly and Steven there was an "extremely high risk" that
Steven Thomas would be born with the congenital disorder. Plaintiffs live in
Salem County but filed the action in Essex County, where defendant Laboratory
Corporation of America (LabCorp) has locations. See R. 4:3-2(a)(3) (venue
"shall be laid in the county in which the cause of action arose, or in which any
1 Because plaintiffs have the same last name, we refer to them by their first names for convenience and to avoid confusion. We mean no disrespect.
A-3723-22 5 party to the action resides at the time of its commencement, or in which the
summons was served on a nonresident defendant"). The other defendants,
Melissa Suarez, D.O., Samantha DeLuca, D.O., Inspira Health Network, Inc.,
Inspira Health Network Medical Group, P.C., Inspira Medical Centers, Inc.,
Dearon Tufankjian, D.O., Dominic Marchiano, M.D., and Robert Debbs, D.O.,
all work or live in or near Gloucester County, which borders Salem County. All
the medical services related to plaintiffs' allegations were rendered in Gloucester
County.
Through several motions and cross-motions, defendants 2 sought to
transfer venue to Gloucester County pursuant to Rule 4:3-3(a). The trial court
denied the requests in three separate orders, accompanied with separate but
essentially identical written decisions. Citing Rule 1:1-2(a), which allows the
relaxation of a procedural rule when strict adherence "would result in an
injustice," the court analyzed defendants' motions under the doctrine of forum
non conveniens, which allows a court to exercise discretion to "determine
whether transfer of the action is proper when an alternative venue exists."
Applying the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Gulf Oil
2 Hereafter, references to defendants do not include LabCorp, which is not a party to this appeal because it neither moved to change venue nor participated in the motions before the trial court. A-3723-22 6 Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947), and adopted by our Supreme Court in
Gore v. U.S. Steel Corp., 15 N.J. 301 (1954), the court found transfer to
Gloucester County unwarranted.
The court determined that under Rule 4:3-2, venue was properly laid in
Essex County because LabCorp "does business throughout . . . New Jersey,
including multiple locations in Essex County." Yet, the court recognized that
Rule 4:3-3(a) provides there may be "a change of venue . . . for the convenience
of the parties and witnesses in the interest of justice." Considering the doctrine
of forum non conveniens, "an equitable principle that may be invoked once
jurisdiction and venue are established," the court cited Kurzke v. Nissan Motor
Corp. in U.S.A., 164 N.J. 159, 162 (2000), for the proposition that the doctrine
"allows a court to decline jurisdiction when it would be inappropriate to try the
case in the forum selected by the plaintiff." The court scrutinized the respective
case load statistics of Essex and Gloucester Counties. The court acknowledged
that from the commencement of the lawsuit through the pendency of the
motions, our Chief Justice had suspended civil trials in Vicinage 15, which
A-3723-22 7 includes Gloucester and Salem Counties, due to the critical shortage of judges
there.3
Considering the parties' arguments and the law, the court denied the
motions. Yet, the court stated its ruling might have been otherwise had civil
trials in Gloucester not been suspended at the time. The court noted:
Gloucester County's current civil trial moratorium must take precedence. If Gloucester County did not have a civil trial moratorium, the [c]ourt would seriously consider relaxing the rules regarding venue. However, at this time, there is no guarantee when the civil trial moratorium will be lifted. Gloucester County's civil trial moratorium has been enacted due to judicial vacancies throughout the state.
[Emphasis added.]
On leave to appeal, the parties reiterate the arguments made before the
trial court with one exception––defendants now contend that because the civil
trial moratorium in Gloucester County no longer exists, venue should be
transferred. This is game-changing.
About three weeks after the trial court entered its orders denying the
motions to transfer venue and after these appeals were filed, the Chief Justice
3 See Press Release, N.J. Cts., Statement of Chief Justice on Suspension of Civil and Matrimonial Trials in Vicinages Due to Vacancy Crisis (Feb. 7, 2023). A-3723-22 8 announced that civil trials would immediately resume in Vicinage 15. 4 This is
significant given the court's recognition that the civil trial moratorium in
Gloucester County took "precedence" in keeping the case in Essex County, and
that if the moratorium had not existed, the court "would seriously consider
relaxing the rules regarding venue" to transfer the case to Gloucester County.
Given the cards the court was dealt at the time it decided the motions, the court
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions to transfer venue to
Gloucester County. See Diodato v. Camden Cnty. Park Comm'n, 136 N.J.
Super. 324, 328 (App. Div. 1975) (applying an abuse of discretion standard in
reviewing a trial court's order on a motion to change venue). However, the
lifting of the moratorium requires a reexamination of whether venue should be
transferred to Gloucester County.
To avoid prolonging the prosecution of this lawsuit, we see no need to
remand to the trial court to reconsider its prior orders based upon the reality that
civil trials in Gloucester County have been reinstated. We therefore summarily
decide that, in accordance with Rule 4:3-3(a) and the doctrine of forum non
4 Press Release, N.J. Cts., Statement of Chief Justice on Suspension of Civil and Matrimonial Trials in Vicinages Due to Vacancy Crisis (July 5, 2023). A-3723-22 9 conveniens, this case should be transferred to Gloucester County because the
civil trial moratorium has been lifted.
Under Rule 4:3-3(a), venue can be changed based on "the convenience of
[the] parties and witnesses in the interest of justice." Generally, forum non
conveniens applies when our courts consider whether we should exercise
jurisdiction over a matter as opposed to another jurisdiction. E.g., Civic S.
Factors Corp. v. Bonat, 65 N.J. 329, 332 (1974) (alternative forum was in New
York); Gore, 15 N.J. at 303-04 (Alabama); Yousef v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 205
N.J. 548, 559 (2011) (South Africa); Kurzke, 164 N.J. at 162 (Germany). Our
courts, however, have also recognized "[t]here are no immutable boundaries
confining [forum non conveniens], nor should there be." Vargas v. A. H. Bull
S.S. Co., 44 N.J. Super. 536, 545 (Law Div.), aff'd, 25 N.J. 293 (1957). As an
equitable principle, forum non conveniens is intended to further "the sound
administration of justice" and our Supreme Court urged courts to "not hesitate
to follow it in appropriate circumstances." Gore, 15 N.J. at 313.
Plaintiffs, defendants, and potential witnesses all reside or work in
Gloucester County or neighboring Salem County. There is no dispute that
keeping this matter in Essex County costs the parties significant travel time and
greater expenses for court appearances for motion practice and trial than in
A-3723-22 10 Gloucester County. The Essex County courthouse is about a two-hour drive
one-way from where defendants as well as plaintiffs live and work. Whereas
the Gloucester County courthouse is about a half-hour drive one-way for the
parties. The extended travel to Essex County would disrupt defendants' medical
practices and their patients' care. Moreover, LabCorp, the party which serves as
the sole basis for this case being in Essex County, has taken no position on
venue. We conclude there is no longer any concrete reason to maintain venue
in Essex County.
We stay our decision to enable plaintiffs to file a petition for certification
within the time allowed by our court rules. But should they advise the trial court
that a petition will not be filed or the time to file a petition expires, the court
shall promptly issue an order transferring this case to Gloucester County.
Reversed.
A-3723-22 11