Class Certified in Lawsuit Against Surgical Center Over Lapsed Sanitation
An Essex County judge has granted class certification on behalf of 3,700 former patients of a surgery center instructed to get tested for HIV and hepatitis after inspectors found unsanitary conditions there. In granting class certification, Superior Court Judge Bridget Stecher appointed Stephen DeNittis and Joseph Osefchen of DeNittis Osefchen Prince in Marlton as class counsel.
October 18, 2019 at 04:25 PM
4 minute read
An Essex County judge granted class certification on behalf of 3,700 former surgery center patients instructed to get tested for HIV and hepatitis after inspectors found unsanitary conditions there.
Superior Court Judge Bridget Stecher granted the motion for class certification Oct. 11 on behalf of all New Jersey residents instructed by the outpatient HealthPlus Surgery Center in Saddle Brook to get tested for HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Stecher also appointed Stephen DeNittis and Joseph Osefchen of DeNittis Osefchen Prince in Marlton as class counsel.
The class certification ruling comes 13 months after the state Department of Health shut down HealthPlus over what inspectors said were major lapses in sanitation at the facility. The department ordered the facility closed on Sept. 7, 2018, and allowed it to reopen three weeks later.
The inspectors found that surgical instruments used at the facility had debris in the hinges, and were rusty and discolored, and that surgical staff failed to cover their facial hair during operations. The inspectors also found poor drug storage methods, an outdated infection control plan and unacceptable sterilization practices. HealthPlus sent letters to 3,778 people treated between January and September 2018, instructing them to have blood tests for hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV.
The litigation seeks medical monitoring of the facility's former patients. The surgery center agreed after the shutdown to pay for only a single blood test for each patient but that measure is inadequate considering the long incubation period for HIV and hepatitis, the suit claims. The suit also seeks preventive medical treatment before class members receive a positive test result.
The judge has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for Nov. 13 concerning the plaintiffs' request for an injunction regulating the defendant's communications with class members regarding their potential exposure to disease.
The ruling follows the defendant's removal of the case to U.S. District Court based on application of the Class Action Fairness Act in January 2019 and a remand to state court in June. U.S. District Judge William Martini ordered the case back to state court based on a finding of minimal diversity between the parties, since the plaintiffs' pleadings limited the class to New Jersey residents, even though some HealthPlus patients who received notices lived outside the state.
The suit claims medical monitoring is warranted under the New Jersey Supreme Court's 1987 ruling in Ayers v. Jackson Township, which first recognized a cause of action for medical monitoring. In that case, the court affirmed a jury verdict awarding medical surveillance relief to Jackson residents exposed to carcinogens in their drinking water. Declaring the relief consistent with the early detection of disease, the court in that case eliminated the need for proof of current injury.
A complaint by DeNittis and Osefchen seeks medical monitoring, education and warnings and preventive medical treatment, and brought claims for negligence and medical malpractice. Other plaintiffs who sued the surgical center brought claims for emotional distress and claims on behalf of spouses and partners of persons who underwent procedures at the center.
After the state ordered HealthPlus shut down, the center improved its infection control procedures, hired additional staff and supervised the cleaning and repair of surgical instruments by an outside vendor.
DeNittis and Osefchen did not respond to calls about the case.
The lawyer for HealthPlus, Keith Roberts of Brach Eichler in Roseland, also did not return a call about the case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All$10 Million Settlement Reached for Baby Injured by Disconnected Ventilator
3 minute readJury Awards Horizon $2.4 Million for Fraudulent Billing Against 3 NJ Health Care Providers
2 minute readVirtua Drug Tests Pregnancy Patients Without Consent, NJ Attorney General Alleges in New Suit
3 minute readNJ Supreme Court Considers Ability to Add Nonparty Doctors to Med Mal Verdict Sheets
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.