NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1600-24
KAREN HANCOCK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MOUNTAINSIDE MEDICAL CENTER MONTCLAIR, DAVID SHAKER, D.O., EDITHA BERTIZ, and LISETTE CASAGRANDE, M.D.,
Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________
Submitted October 22, 2025 – Decided November 10, 2025
Before Judges Mayer and Vanek.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-4690-24.
Alfred V. Acquaviva, LLC, attorney for appellant (Alfred V. Acquaviva, II, of counsel and on the brief).
Grossman, Heavey & Halpin, PC, attorneys for respondent David Shaker, D.O. (Dylan Ulrich, of counsel and on the brief). MacNeill, O'Neill, & Riveles, LLC, attorneys for respondent Lisette Casagrande, M.D. (Gary Riveles, of counsel; Anelia Dikovytska Brown, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Karen Hancock appeals from the dismissal with prejudice of her
medical malpractice complaint against defendants Mountainside Medical Center
(Mountainside), David Shaker, D.O., and Lisette Casagrande, M.D.1 Plaintiff's
complaint was dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants for failure to comply
with the Affidavit of Merit (AOM) statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 to -29. We
affirm.
We recite the facts from the motion record. On July 16, 2024, plaintiff,
as a self-represented litigant, filed a handwritten medical malpractice complaint
against defendants. In the accompanying Case Information Statement (CIS),
plaintiff checked the "yes" box, indicating her assertion of a professional
malpractice claim. Because plaintiff checked "yes," the CIS instructed plaintiff
to "see N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 and applicable case law regarding [her] obligation
to file an [AOM]."
1 Defendant Editha Bertiz was dismissed without prejudice and is not participating on appeal.
A-1600-24 2 Mountainside and Drs. Casagrande and Shaker filed answers and asserted
plaintiff's failure to file an AOM as an affirmative defense. The sixty-day period
for plaintiff to satisfy her AOM obligation ran from the date each defendant filed
an answer and demanded an AOM. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27. An additional period
of sixty days may have been granted upon a showing of "good cause." Ibid.
Because defendants' affirmative defenses asserted plaintiff failed to
provide an AOM, the judge scheduled a series of Ferreira2 conferences. Plaintiff
did not personally attend any of the Ferreira conferences. Instead, plaintiff's
son, who is not a lawyer, attended the Ferreira conferences.
The judge held the first Ferreira conference on September 9, 2024,
addressing plaintiff's claims against Dr. Casagrande. When plaintiff's son
attended this conference, the judge advised him plaintiff was required to appear.
The judge also told plaintiff's son about plaintiff's obligation to file an AOM to
pursue her medical malpractice claims. The judge rescheduled this Ferreira
conference to October 10, 2024.
2 Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 178 N.J. 144, 147 (2003) (requiring "case management conferences in the early stages of malpractice actions to ensure compliance with the discovery process, including the [AOM] statute").
A-1600-24 3 Two days later, the judge held another Ferreira conference regarding
plaintiff's claims against Dr. Shaker. Again, plaintiff's son attended the
conference without plaintiff. The judge reminded plaintiff's son that plaintiff,
or an attorney representing plaintiff, must attend the conference. He rescheduled
this Ferreira conference to October 11, 2024.
The Ferreira conference scheduled for October 10, 2024 was adjourned
due to the judge's unavailability. The same day, Dr. Casagrande filed a motion
to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to provide the required AOM.
The next day, the judge conducted a follow-up Ferreira conference to
address the claims against Drs. Casagrande and Shaker and an initial Ferreira
conference regarding plaintiff's claims against Mountainside. Plaintiff's son
also attended these conferences instead of plaintiff. The judge again reminded
plaintiff's son about the AOM requirement.
Because plaintiff failed to provide any AOM, defendants moved
separately to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. In orders dated
December 6, 2024, the judge granted the motions on behalf of Drs. Casagrande
and Shaker, citing plaintiff's failure to provide an AOM. In a January 7, 2025
order, the judge granted Mountainside's motion for the same reason.
A-1600-24 4 Plaintiff retained counsel to file this appeal. Plaintiff's notice of appeal
(NOA) reflected only an appeal from the January 7, 2025 order granting
Mountainside's motion. However, the NOA listed all defendants and their
counsel. Plaintiff's appellate CIS stated: "The decision being appealed is an
order dismissing [plaintiff]'s complaint and amended complaint with prejudice
against Mountainside Medical Center." Although plaintiff's appellate CIS
focused on the dismissal order obtained by Mountainside, it referenced the
December 6, 2024 orders entered in favor of Drs. Casagrande and Shaker, stating
"plaintiff seeks to have the dismissal reversed and the case reinstated so that she
may proceed with her claims." Despite the lack of specificity reflecting the
orders on appeal in the NOA and appellate CIS, we consider plaintiff's appeal
as encompassing all orders dismissing her complaint with prejudice. 3
On appeal, plaintiff argues extraordinary circumstances justified a "good
cause" extension to file an AOM. Additionally, she contends the judge should
have considered a less drastic sanction than dismissal of her complaint with
prejudice for failure to file an AOM. Further, plaintiff asserts her self-
3 We read plaintiff's reference to "the dismissal" and "the case" as encompassing the December orders and the January order. See Synnex Corp. v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 394 N.J. Super. 577, 588 (App. Div. 2007) (noting the failure to identify an issue in the NOA may be saved by including the issue in the CIS filed with the NOA). A-1600-24 5 represented status before the trial court "deprived her of a fair opportunity to be
heard." We reject these arguments.
We review a trial court's dismissal of a complaint based on the AOM
statute de novo. Hoover v. Wetzler, 472 N.J. Super. 230, 235 (App. Div. 2022).
The AOM statute requires plaintiffs alleging professional malpractice to:
[W]ithin [sixty] days following the date of filing of the answer to the complaint by the defendant, provide each defendant with an affidavit of an appropriate licensed person that there exists a reasonable probability that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional or occupational standard or treatment practices. The court may grant no more than one additional period, not to exceed [sixty] days, to file the affidavit pursuant to this section, upon a finding of good cause.
[N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27.]
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-1600-24
KAREN HANCOCK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MOUNTAINSIDE MEDICAL CENTER MONTCLAIR, DAVID SHAKER, D.O., EDITHA BERTIZ, and LISETTE CASAGRANDE, M.D.,
Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________
Submitted October 22, 2025 – Decided November 10, 2025
Before Judges Mayer and Vanek.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-4690-24.
Alfred V. Acquaviva, LLC, attorney for appellant (Alfred V. Acquaviva, II, of counsel and on the brief).
Grossman, Heavey & Halpin, PC, attorneys for respondent David Shaker, D.O. (Dylan Ulrich, of counsel and on the brief). MacNeill, O'Neill, & Riveles, LLC, attorneys for respondent Lisette Casagrande, M.D. (Gary Riveles, of counsel; Anelia Dikovytska Brown, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Karen Hancock appeals from the dismissal with prejudice of her
medical malpractice complaint against defendants Mountainside Medical Center
(Mountainside), David Shaker, D.O., and Lisette Casagrande, M.D.1 Plaintiff's
complaint was dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants for failure to comply
with the Affidavit of Merit (AOM) statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 to -29. We
affirm.
We recite the facts from the motion record. On July 16, 2024, plaintiff,
as a self-represented litigant, filed a handwritten medical malpractice complaint
against defendants. In the accompanying Case Information Statement (CIS),
plaintiff checked the "yes" box, indicating her assertion of a professional
malpractice claim. Because plaintiff checked "yes," the CIS instructed plaintiff
to "see N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 and applicable case law regarding [her] obligation
to file an [AOM]."
1 Defendant Editha Bertiz was dismissed without prejudice and is not participating on appeal.
A-1600-24 2 Mountainside and Drs. Casagrande and Shaker filed answers and asserted
plaintiff's failure to file an AOM as an affirmative defense. The sixty-day period
for plaintiff to satisfy her AOM obligation ran from the date each defendant filed
an answer and demanded an AOM. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27. An additional period
of sixty days may have been granted upon a showing of "good cause." Ibid.
Because defendants' affirmative defenses asserted plaintiff failed to
provide an AOM, the judge scheduled a series of Ferreira2 conferences. Plaintiff
did not personally attend any of the Ferreira conferences. Instead, plaintiff's
son, who is not a lawyer, attended the Ferreira conferences.
The judge held the first Ferreira conference on September 9, 2024,
addressing plaintiff's claims against Dr. Casagrande. When plaintiff's son
attended this conference, the judge advised him plaintiff was required to appear.
The judge also told plaintiff's son about plaintiff's obligation to file an AOM to
pursue her medical malpractice claims. The judge rescheduled this Ferreira
conference to October 10, 2024.
2 Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 178 N.J. 144, 147 (2003) (requiring "case management conferences in the early stages of malpractice actions to ensure compliance with the discovery process, including the [AOM] statute").
A-1600-24 3 Two days later, the judge held another Ferreira conference regarding
plaintiff's claims against Dr. Shaker. Again, plaintiff's son attended the
conference without plaintiff. The judge reminded plaintiff's son that plaintiff,
or an attorney representing plaintiff, must attend the conference. He rescheduled
this Ferreira conference to October 11, 2024.
The Ferreira conference scheduled for October 10, 2024 was adjourned
due to the judge's unavailability. The same day, Dr. Casagrande filed a motion
to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to provide the required AOM.
The next day, the judge conducted a follow-up Ferreira conference to
address the claims against Drs. Casagrande and Shaker and an initial Ferreira
conference regarding plaintiff's claims against Mountainside. Plaintiff's son
also attended these conferences instead of plaintiff. The judge again reminded
plaintiff's son about the AOM requirement.
Because plaintiff failed to provide any AOM, defendants moved
separately to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. In orders dated
December 6, 2024, the judge granted the motions on behalf of Drs. Casagrande
and Shaker, citing plaintiff's failure to provide an AOM. In a January 7, 2025
order, the judge granted Mountainside's motion for the same reason.
A-1600-24 4 Plaintiff retained counsel to file this appeal. Plaintiff's notice of appeal
(NOA) reflected only an appeal from the January 7, 2025 order granting
Mountainside's motion. However, the NOA listed all defendants and their
counsel. Plaintiff's appellate CIS stated: "The decision being appealed is an
order dismissing [plaintiff]'s complaint and amended complaint with prejudice
against Mountainside Medical Center." Although plaintiff's appellate CIS
focused on the dismissal order obtained by Mountainside, it referenced the
December 6, 2024 orders entered in favor of Drs. Casagrande and Shaker, stating
"plaintiff seeks to have the dismissal reversed and the case reinstated so that she
may proceed with her claims." Despite the lack of specificity reflecting the
orders on appeal in the NOA and appellate CIS, we consider plaintiff's appeal
as encompassing all orders dismissing her complaint with prejudice. 3
On appeal, plaintiff argues extraordinary circumstances justified a "good
cause" extension to file an AOM. Additionally, she contends the judge should
have considered a less drastic sanction than dismissal of her complaint with
prejudice for failure to file an AOM. Further, plaintiff asserts her self-
3 We read plaintiff's reference to "the dismissal" and "the case" as encompassing the December orders and the January order. See Synnex Corp. v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 394 N.J. Super. 577, 588 (App. Div. 2007) (noting the failure to identify an issue in the NOA may be saved by including the issue in the CIS filed with the NOA). A-1600-24 5 represented status before the trial court "deprived her of a fair opportunity to be
heard." We reject these arguments.
We review a trial court's dismissal of a complaint based on the AOM
statute de novo. Hoover v. Wetzler, 472 N.J. Super. 230, 235 (App. Div. 2022).
The AOM statute requires plaintiffs alleging professional malpractice to:
[W]ithin [sixty] days following the date of filing of the answer to the complaint by the defendant, provide each defendant with an affidavit of an appropriate licensed person that there exists a reasonable probability that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional or occupational standard or treatment practices. The court may grant no more than one additional period, not to exceed [sixty] days, to file the affidavit pursuant to this section, upon a finding of good cause.
[N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27.]
The failure to provide the AOM is a failure to state a cause of action under
N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-29, requiring with prejudice dismissal of a malpractice action.
See A.T. v. Cohen, 231 N.J. 337, 346 (2017) (citing Alan J. Cornblatt v. Barow,
153 N.J. 218, 247 (1998)). "The core purpose underlying the statute is 'to require
plaintiffs . . . to make a threshold showing that their claim is meritorious, in
order that meritless lawsuits readily could be identified at an early stage of the
litigation.'" Paragon Contactors, Inc. v. Peachtree Condo. Ass'n, 202 N.J. 415,
A-1600-24 6 421 (2010) (quoting In re Petition of Hall, 147 N.J. 379, 391 (1997)). "[W]here
a plaintiff fails to provide an [AOM] within the statutorily mandated timeframe,
it shall be deemed a failure to state a cause of action unless the plaintiff satisfies
an exception to [the AOM] requirement." Cowley v. Virtua Health Sys., 242
N.J. 1, 23 (2020).
Due to the harsh consequences of failing to comply with the AOM statute,
our Supreme Court required trial courts to conduct case management
conferences, known as Ferreira conferences, within ninety days of service of an
answer in all actions alleging malpractice. Ferreira, 178 N.J. at 154. At the
Ferreira conference, if a plaintiff has not served an AOM, "the court will remind
the parties of their obligations under [N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27] and case law." Id.
at 155.
The Court created two exceptions, allowing trial courts some flexibility in
applying the AOM statute. First, "[a] complaint will not be dismissed if the
plaintiff can show that he [or she] has substantially complied with the statute."
Id. at 152. Second, "[w]here extraordinary circumstances are present, a late
affidavit will result in a dismissal without prejudice." Paragon, 202 N.J. at 422-
23.
A-1600-24 7 Our courts have recognized the AOM "does not impose overly
burdensome obligations. The plaintiff must keep an eye on the calendar and
obtain and serve the expert's report within the statutory timeframe." Ferreira,
178 N.J. at 146. As such, "attorney inadvertence will not support the
extraordinary circumstances standard." Palanque v. Lambert-Wooley, 168 N.J.
398, 405 (2001) (citing Cornblatt, 153 N.J. at 247); see also Ferreira, 178 N.J.
at 152 ("[W]e do know that attorney inadvertence is not such a circumstance
entitling plaintiff to a remedy of dismissal of a complaint without prejudice)."
(emphasis in original) (citing Palanque, 168 N.J. at 405). In the context of AOM
obligations, "parties are presumed to know the law and are obliged to follow it."
Triarsi v. BSC Grp. Servs., LLC, 422 N.J. Super. 104, 122 (App. Div. 2011)
(quoting Paragon, 202 N.J. at 424).
Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied the judge properly dismissed
plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for failure to file an AOM. The judge
conducted several Ferreira conferences addressing plaintiff's obligation to file
an AOM. Although plaintiff failed to appear at these conferences, her son
attended. More than once, the judge told plaintiff's son about plaintiff's
obligation to file an AOM to prosecute her medical malpractice action.
Furthermore, at least twice, the judge told plaintiff's son that he could not
A-1600-24 8 represent his mother and plaintiff, or an attorney on her behalf, had to attend the
conferences.
Despite the judge explaining plaintiff's obligation to comply with the
AOM requirements at the various Ferreira conferences, which plaintiff's son
presumably reported to his mother, plaintiff never submitted an AOM. Nothing
on this record would support finding extraordinary circumstances to reverse the
orders dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. Even on appeal, plaintiff
did not indicate she presently has an AOM that would comply with the statute.
We reject plaintiff's assertion that extraordinary circumstances existed to
excuse her noncompliance with the AOM statute. Plaintiff cites her "pro se
status" in support of this argument.
The Court has expressly stated attorney inadvertence does not constitute
extraordinary circumstances. See Ferreira, 178 N.J. at 152 (citing Palanque, 168
N.J. at 405). While plaintiff was self-represented before filing this appeal, that
fact alone does not constitute extraordinary circumstances, because "parties are
presumed to know the law and are obliged to follow it." Paragon, 202 N.J. at
424. Further, "procedural rules," such as the obligation to file an AOM, "are not
abrogated or abridged by plaintiff's pro se status." Rosenblum v. Borough of
Closter, 285 N.J. Super. 230, 241 (App. Div. 1995).
A-1600-24 9 Additionally, plaintiff argues there was "no indication that [she] was given
proper guidance or a warning before the dismissal." Trial judges are expected
to "act as a backstop" by holding Ferreira conferences reminding litigants of
their AOM obligation. A.T., 231 N.J. at 349.
Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the record confirms the judge
painstakingly fulfilled his obligation to remind plaintiff an AOM was required.
At least four times the judge convened Ferreira conferences which plaintiff
failed to attend. Instead, plaintiff's son, a non-attorney, attended these
conferences and was informed of plaintiff's obligation to file an AOM for her to
proceed with her medical malpractice action. The judge provided clear guidance
on the AOM requirement despite plaintiff's failure to appear at the Ferreira
conferences. Moreover, the CIS filed by plaintiff with her medical malpractice
complaint instructed her to "see [the AOM statute] and applicable case law
regarding [her] obligation to file an [AOM]." Thus, we reject plaintiff
contention that she had insufficient guidance regarding her obligations under the
AOM statute.
Finally, the absence of misconduct or bad faith by plaintiff does not
constitute extraordinary circumstances to excuse an untimely AOM. See Yagnik
v. Premium Outlet Partners, 467 N.J. Super. 91, 114-15 (App. Div. 2021) (noting
A-1600-24 10 delayed receipt of medical records, or a defendant's failure to provide discovery
which would allow an expert to review the case and issue an AOM, could
constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying an untimely filed AOM).
However, this case does not involve an untimely filed AOM. Here, plaintiff
never filed any AOM despite receiving instructions in the CIS and during the
Ferreira conferences of her obligation to do so or risk dismissal of her
malpractice action with prejudice. Based on these specific facts, plaintiff failed
to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying her failure to submit an
AOM and the judge properly dismissed her complaint with prejudice.
To the extent we have not addressed any of plaintiff's remaining
arguments, they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.
R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-1600-24 11