Dismissal - Civil Procedure Abulkhair v. Boeme (A-3544-08T1)
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DOCKET NO. A-3544-08T13544-08T1
ASSEM A. ABULKHAIR,
EDWARD W. BOEHM, D.M.D.
and EDWARD W. BOEHM, P.A.,
Argued March 16, 2010 - Decided
Before Judges Wefing and Messano.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-225-08.
Assem A. Abulkhair, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
David Lustbader argued the cause for respondents (Philip M. Lustbader & David Lustbader, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Lustbader and James S. Colavito, on the brief).
Plaintiff Assem A. Abulkhair appeals from the denial of his motion for reconsideration and a second order denying his request to extend discovery. We have considered the arguments plaintiff has raised in light of the record and applicable legal standards. We reverse.
Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident and sought dental treatment from defendant, Edward W. Boehm, D.M.D., in September 1999. He continued treatment with defendant through April 2002. In his pro se complaint, filed on February 4, 2008, plaintiff alleged that he believed defendant was submitting his bills to plaintiffs PIP carrier for payment, and not to Medicaid. Plaintiff claimed that as a result, his PIP claim against his insurance carrier was ultimately dismissed, and he suffered damages as a result. Although the complaint was denominated as one for "Medical Malpractice," it is clear from its face that was not the case.
This was obvious to the motion judge, who, when defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to file an affidavit of merit, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27, concluded in a brief written opinion,
While billing patients is part of the Defendants practice, it remains outside of the professional services rendered by the Defendant and therefore any alleged errors made in this capacity would not fall under the umbrella of professional malpractice. See Hampton Medical Group, P.A. v. Princeton Ins. Co., 366 N.J. Super. 165 [,178] (App. Div. 2004) ("[t]he bill is an effect of the service provided, not part of the service itself[.]") [(quotation omitted)]. Therefore, since the case at bar is not one based on medical malpractice, submission of an affidavit of merit is unnecessary.
The judges order of July 3, 2008 denied defendants motion; he entered a second order changing the case track of the litigation to "Track II . . . Tort-Other." See R. 4:5A-2(b) ("[A] track assignment may be changed by the court on its own motion . . . only if the fundamental cause or causes of action have changed or if the case type or track was erroneously identified on a partys Case Information Statement . . . .").
Discovery ensued, and it is clear from the appellate record that it was contentious. In October, defendant again moved to dismiss the complaint alleging it was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations generally applicable to "tort actions," N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2. Plaintiff argued that the appropriate statute of limitations was that applicable to contract actions, i.e., six-years, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1; and, alternatively, that the discovery rule should apply, Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267 (1973), because he was unaware of defendants alleged billing error until October 2007, during discovery in the PIP suit. Plaintiff also argued the motion was premature because discovery was ongoing.
In a short written opinion, the judge concluded that N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2 applied, but that plaintiff should be accorded the opportunity to demonstrate the grounds for equitable relief provided by the discovery rule. He ordered both sides to submit certifications, and denied defendants motion without prejudice.
Plaintiffs certification included references to his attempts to obtain his records from defendant during the course of his PIP litigation. Plaintiff also moved to compel additional discovery, claiming defendant had failed to provide responsive interrogatory answers, and plaintiffs complete medical file. On October 24, the judge entered an order denying that motion, but granting plaintiffs request to inspect a disputed "original registration form." Discovery disputes continued, plaintiff moved to compel the production of certain documents, and the judge entered an order, sua sponte, on December 2, requiring plaintiff to appear in court on January 13, 2009.
Plaintiff appeared in court and the judge conducted a Lopez hearing, during which plaintiff was placed under oath and questioned by defense counsel and the judge. The judge also considered oral argument regarding the discovery dispute.
On January 14, the judge entered two orders, one dismissing the complaint with prejudice, and the second denying plaintiffs discovery requests. In a brief written opinion, the judge concluded that plaintiff should have known by 2005 at the latest that defendant had not submitted the dental bills to plaintiffs PIP carrier. He applied a two-year statute of limitations to the claim, and dismissed the complaint as time-barred. The opinion did not address the discovery application, though it is clear that the judge concluded the issue was moot in light of the dismissal of the complaint.
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, and to compel the production of certain documents and for an extension of discovery. The judge denied those requests in two orders entered on February 9. In a brief written opinion, the judge found no reason presented under Rule 4:49-2 to warrant reconsideration, and he determined the discovery extension motion was moot. Plaintiff filed this appeal on March 25.
Plaintiffs notice of appeal only seeks review of the February 9 orders, though his Case Information Statement clearly references the January dismissal "based on the statute of limitations . . . ." The failure on plaintiffs part to include in the notice of appeal the original order dismissing his complaint permits us to limit our review solely to the denial of his motions for reconsideration and discovery relief. See Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of Newark, 349 N.J. Super. 455, 461-62 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 174 N.J. 544 (2002). That technical failure might be overlooked, however, if "the substantive issues in the case and the basis for the motion judges ruling on the [motion to dismiss] and [the] reconsideration motion [were] the same." Id. at 461.
In this case, the judges ruling on the motion for reconsideration reiterated the grounds for his earlier ruling dismissing the complaint. As a result, our review is not impeded, nor has defendant been prejudiced since he has argued the merits of the dismissal in his brief. We therefore exercise our discretion and consider whether the complaint was properly dismissed as time-barred.
Because the motion judges factual finding that plaintiff knew or should have known about his claim against defendant no later than 2005 is based upon substantial credible evidence adduced at the Lopez hearing, we accept it. See Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974); State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999) (requiring us to give deference to the trial courts credibility determinations). Although defendant argues, and the motion judge accepted, that the applicable statute of limitations for plaintiffs claims was two years, we conclude this was error. The judge reasoned that plaintiffs complaint alleged an "intentional tort," although he never expounded on what he meant by that. N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2(a) provides in pertinent part that "[e]very action at law for an injury to the person caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of any person . . . shall be commenced within two years next after the cause of any such action shall have accrued . . . ." While some intentional torts are subject to this statute of limitations, the gravamen of the cause of action must be some "injury to the person . . . ." Ibid. See, e.g., Balliet v. Fennell, 368 N.J. Super. 15, 21 (App. Div. 2004) (finding breach of fiduciary duty claim subject to N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2 because the "cause of action . . . str[uck] at the physical and emotional well-being of" the plaintiff). If the action seeks recovery for personal injuries, the statute applies even if the complaint sounds in breach of contract. Heavner v. Uniroyal, Inc., 63 N.J. 130, 144 (1973) (citations omitted).
However, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 provides in pertinent part that "[e]very action at law for . . . for any tortious injury to real or personal property, . . . for any tortious injury to the rights of another . . ., or for recovery upon a contractual claim . . . shall be commenced within 6 years next after the cause of any such action shall have accrued." The essence of plaintiffs claim was that defendant improperly billed Medicaid instead of his PIP insurer, and, as a result, plaintiffs PIP claims were disputed and ultimately dismissed. Although it may have been inartfully framed, the complaint sought recovery on a theory that defendants acts or omissions either breached an implied contract with plaintiff regarding payment for services, or that defendant otherwise tortiously interfered with the contractual rights between plaintiff and his PIP carrier. Based upon the issues raised on appeal, it is not incumbent upon us to evaluate either the plausibility or merits of plaintiffs complaint. However, applying the statute of limitations contained in N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, plaintiffs complaint, filed in 2008, was not time-barred.
Because we reverse the dismissal of the complaint, we must also reverse the order denying plaintiffs request for an extension of discovery and to compel the production of documents because those issues are no longer "moot." We express no particular opinion regarding plaintiffs applications, and we leave all issues regarding discovery in this matter to the sound discretion of the trial judge.
Reversed and remanded; we do not retain jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs complaint names "Edward W. Boehm, D.A." as a defendant. We assume this was an erroneous reference to the professional association that employed defendant; we have corrected the reference as necessary throughout this opinion.
Throughout the opinion, we shall refer to both defendants in the singular.
We affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs PIP suit on statute of limitation grounds. Abulkhair v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. A-3296-07 (App. Div. December 10, 2008), certif. denied, 199 N.J. 130 (2009).
We cannot discern from the limited record on appeal the exact nature of this form and its significance, if any, to the litigation.
Article of the Week
Meet with an experienced
Attorney to handle your important legal needs.
Please call the office to schedule a confidential "in Office"
Attorneys are not permitted to provide legal advice by email.
Since 1985, KENNETH VERCAMMEN
has worked as a personal injury attorney, working for injury victims and
their families. By taking a hard-hitting, aggressive approach toward the
insurance companies, KENNETH VERCAMMEN and our co-counsel have consistently
obtained outstanding results for many injured clients over the years I
am proud to have worked on cases in various capacities, small and large.
While obviously prior results cannot guarantee the outcome of future cases,
I can guarantee that you case will receive the same degree of dedication
and hard work that went into each of these prior cases.
In direct contrast to the hard-hitting approach we take toward the insurance
companies is the soft approach we take toward our clients.
I am proud of my compassionate staff as I am of the outstanding financial
results they have achieved. For many years, I have watched them treat
our clients with patience, dignity and respect. I would have it no other
Many years ago, I attended a seminar sponsored by the American Bar Association
on Law Practice Management. This was to help insure that each of our clients
is always treated like a person -- not a file! We recognize that you are
innocent victims and that you have placed your trust in us. Please understand
that we understand what you are going through. Feel comforted that we
are here to help you.
If you retain KENNETH VERCAMMEN to represent you, we will give you the
same advice we give each of our clients -- concentrate on your life, you
family and your health. We will take care of everything else. Leave all
of the work and worry about your legal rights to us. Trust us. Believe
in us. Have faith in us as your attorneys. Understand that we will always
to do what we believe is best for you and your case. Helping you is our
job. In fact, it is our only job -- guiding injury victims like you through
one of the most difficult times of your lives, with care and concern --
while fighting aggressively to the limits of the law to obtain compensation
and justice for each of you!
Print our Personal Injury Questionnaire on our Website, Fill it out and
Fax back, so we can determine if we can help you obtain an injury settlement.
We would welcome an opportunity to prove to you what we have proven to
thousands of injured clients -- that you can feel comfortable and secure
in the fact that KENNETH VERCAMMEN - Trial Attorney We Fight To Win.
When you have been injured in an accident or collision, you are worried
about who is going to pay your medical bills, lost wages, and other damages.
The last thing you want is to be taken advantage of by an insurance company.
If you dont protect your rights, you may not be able to make a
Insurance companies have attorneys and adjusters whose goal is to pay
you as little as they can. You need a New Jersey personal injury lawyer
to fight for you. I am dedicated to helping your recover as much money
as possible under the law.
You need an attorney who will work hard to protect your rights, maximize
your insurance settlement and minimize the hassles of dealing with the
insurance companies. You need an experienced and aggressive New Jersey
trial lawyer with PROVEN RESULTS who will fight for you. Having an experienced
personal injury lawyer can make the difference between getting what you
deserve and getting nothing.
Without the threat of a lawyer who is willing to go to trial and seek
a big jury verdict, why would an insurance company pay you what your claim
is really worth? Lawsuits can be expensive, and many people do not have
the money to pursue their claim. In every case, I advance all costs associated
with pursuing your case and I do not ask you for a penny until we recover
from the other side.
I am an experienced aggressive trial lawyer and a 3rd degree Black Belt.
I am not afraid to take your case to trial if that is what it takes to
maximize the amount of money your recover for your personal injury. I
offer one-on-one service, and I will not hand your case off to an inexperienced
lawyer or a paralegal.
Reduce the stress of making a claim.
Personal injury accidents can turn your life upside down. Making a personal
injury claim can be difficult and time consuming. Once I take your case,
you can stop worrying about dealing with the insurance companies and focus
on recovering from your injuries. I take care of all of the paperwork,
phone calls, and negotiations, so you can get on with your life.
p.s. For those clients who are afraid or reluctant to go to Court, KENNETH
VERCAMMEN also offers a special -- For Settlement Only --
program. This means that if we are unable to settle with the insurance
company, we will not go any further -- unless you want us to. You have
my personal assurance that there will be absolutely no pressure and no
We handle personal injury cases on a contingency fee basis.
This means: YOU DONT OWE ME A LEGAL FEE UNLESS I RECOVER MONEY
Call our office to schedule a "confidential" appointment 732-572-0500
Kenneth A. Vercammen is the Managing Attorney at Kenneth Vercammen &
Associates in Edison, NJ. He is a New Jersey trial attorney has devoted
a substantial portion of his professional time to the preparation and
trial of litigated matters. He has appeared in Courts throughout New Jersey
each week on personal injury matters, Criminal /Municipal Court trials,
and contested Probate hearings.
Mr. Vercammen has published over 125 legal articles in national and New
Jersey publications on criminal, elder law, probate and litigation topics.
He is a highly regarded lecturer on litigation issues for the American
Bar Association, NJ ICLE, New Jersey State Bar Association and Middlesex
County Bar Association. His articles have been published in noted publications
included New Jersey Law Journal, ABA Law Practice Management Magazine,
and New Jersey Lawyer. He is the Editor in Chief of the American Bar Association
Tort and Insurance Committee Newsletter.
Admitted In NJ, US Supreme Court and Federal District Court.
the Law Office of
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
for an appointment.
The Law Office cannot provide legal advice or answer legal questions over
the phone or by email. Please call the Law office and schedule a confidential
"in office" consultation.
This web site is purely a
public resource of general New Jersey information (intended, but not
promised or guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date). It is
not intended be a source of legal advice, do not rely on information
at this site or others in place of the advice of competent counsel.
The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen complies with the New Jersey Rules
of Professional Conduct. This web site is not sponsored or associated
with any particular linked entity unless specifically stated.
The existence of any particular link is simply intended to imply potential
interest to the reader, inclusion of a link should not be construed
as an endorsement.
Copyright 2018. Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.