An appeals panel affirmed that a woman who injured herself at a historic property owned by the borough of Fieldsboro while doing volunteer work complied with the Tort Claims Act despite filing a late notice.

A judge below previously ruled the woman, who sustained medical expenses after breaking her jaw in the fall, substantially complied with the TCA based in part on her correspondence with someone whom she believed to be a borough official.

The Appellate Division panel in Danch v. Fieldsboro said the substantial compliance doctrine is intended to prevent barring legitimate claims due to technical flaws and applies as long as the claimant demonstrates he or she took steps to comply with the statute, there was no prejudice to the other party, and a reasonable explanation is given as to why there was not strict compliance with the statute.

"On this record, and recognizing that there exists no prejudice whatsoever to defendant, we conclude that the judge did not abuse his discretion by invoking this equitable doctrine," the panel of Appellate Division Judges Douglas Fasciale, Scott Moynihan and Stephanie Ann Mitterhoff said in the Sept. 17 per curiam decision.

According to the decision, plaintiff Nancy Danch sued Fieldsboro and Burlington County after the incident on Oct. 21, 2017, in which she tripped near a platform at the property known as the White Hill Mansion, where she was volunteering for the Friends of White Hill Mansion. White Hill Mansion and the Friends of White Hill Mansion also were named defendants.

The Friends, according to court, were charged with restoring and preserving the property. The chief executive officer of the Friends was also the borough's mayor

On July 26, 2018, Burlington County Superior Court Judge John Harrington entered an order granting Danch's motion to file a late notice under the TCA.

The borough appealed Harrington's order, arguing that Harrington abused his discretion, and that Danch failed to substantially comply with the notice requirements under the TCA or demonstrate extraordinary circumstances.

John Gillespie at Parker McCay in Mount Laurel, who represented the borough, had no comment.

Kyle Keller of Levy, Baldante, Finney & Rubenstein in Haddonfield represented Danch. "My client and I were pleased with the Appellate Division's analysis and affirmation," Keller said in a phone call Wednesday. "But since this is an ongoing case, we cannot comment any further at this juncture."

Harrington found that Danch had substantially complied with the TCA's "contents of claim" section, which lists what a claimant should provide, including name, location, intended recipient of the notice, date, circumstances of the occurrence, general description of the injury, and costs of the injury.

The judge noted that the president of the Friends, Loretta Kelly, informed Patricia Hansell, clerk of the borough, via email of Danch's alleged injury; and Kelly provided the name and address of Danch to Hansell, and emailed pictures of Danch's injuries or where she had fallen. And the day after the alleged fall, Harrington wrote, Kelly knew that Danch was hurt and hoped that she was "not too badly hurt," according to a phone exchange between the two women, Harrington said. Also, a week after the fall, Kelly knew that Danch underwent jaw surgery, which ultimately was relayed to Hansell, Harrington added.

Harrington said it was most persuasive that nine days after the injury, the borough was provided Danch's name and address, the date and location of the incident, the entity causing her injury, and possibly photographs evidencing the incident and injuries.

The Appellate Division in affirming wrote: "Thus, there is substantial credible evidence … well within 90 days of when the accident occurred."

"The doctrine of substantial compliance is an alternative to the extraordinary circumstances requirement and can serve to relieve a claimant, like plaintiff, of the TCA's notice requirements. It is an equitable doctrine that is utilized 'to avoid the harsh consequences that flow from technically inadequate actions that nonetheless meet a statute's underlying purpose,'" the judges wrote, quoting from case law.

The judges said Kelly, whom Danch had verbal and written communications with over her injury and medical expenses, held herself out as an authorized representative of the borough by operating out of the same address as the borough's municipal building.

"Plaintiff honestly believed that she was, all along, filing a claim through her various communications with Ms. Kelly of [The Friends and defendant]," wrote the panel.

The panel noted the borough allegedly never provided Danch with a claims form.

There were also a series of email exchanges in early 2018 between Kelly, Hansell and Danch, according to the panel, regarding Danch's medical expenses.

It wasn't until March 26, 2018, after the 90-day filing period, that Hansell informed Danch that the borough never received her claim. On the same day, Danch contacted counsel, leading to her suit.

"We are convinced, as was Judge Harrington, that—even if there was no substantial compliance—plaintiff demonstrated sufficient reasons for the late filing of her notice under the TCA," the panel wrote.

The TCA allows a claimant to file a notice at any time within one year after the accrual of the claim provided that the public entity or employee isn't substantially prejudiced, and the panel found no such prejudice in Danch's case.

"Even if plaintiff failed to comply substantially with the notice requirements of the TCA, which is not the case, plaintiff demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting the late filing of the claims notice under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9," the panel said.