The issue of proximate causation is often the most difficult challenge to the attorney handling a medical malpractice case. In Scafidi v. Seiler, 119 N.J. 93 (1990), the Supreme Court observed that the concept of causation “is an inscrutably vague notion, susceptible to endless philosophical argument, as well as practical manipulation.” In 2002, as per the instructions of the Supreme Court in in Reynolds v. Gonzales, 172 N.J. 266 (2002), the Civil Model Jury Charge Committee revised MJC 5.50E. The revised charge, which incorporated model jury interrogatories, was approved by the Supreme Court in Verdicchio v. Ricca, 179 N.J. 1 (2004). This seemed to have settled the issue, albeit imperfectly, for a decade or so.
However, the issue became even more confusing as the result of the recent decisions in Koseoglu v. Wry, A-1008-11T4 (App. Div. 2013), and Flood v. Aluri-Vallabhaneni, A-4248-11T2 (App. Div. 2013). In these decisions, both published, the same panel of the appellate court criticized the jury interrogatories incorporated into Civil Model Jury Charge 5.50E.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
