Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her complaint against Dr. Borsky and St. Peter’s Medical Center, alleging that she was not informed about the experimental nature of an intraocular lens implanted during surgery. The court dismissed her claim, citing that a Lopez hearing had determined she knew enough about the potential fault of third parties, including Dr. Borsky, by January 1988 to warrant a cause of action, thus barring her May 1991 lawsuit under the statute of limitations. The plaintiff experienced complications post-surgery and received confirmations from other doctors in 1985 and 1987 that the lens was causing corneal damage. Despite continuing consultations with Dr. Borsky, she suspected malpractice but was unaware of the lens's experimental status until late 1990. The court emphasized the need for a Lopez hearing to establish when the cause of action accrued, applying the discovery rule to determine whether the statute of limitations could be tolled due to her late awareness. The case was remanded for further proceedings to explore the informed consent claim, especially since she had settled with the lens manufacturer, Surgidev Corporation. The outcome hinges on proving that a reasonable patient, if properly informed, would have made a different treatment decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Informed Consent under New Jersey Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff's claim focused on the failure of Dr. Borsky to disclose the use of an experimental lens, which was not initially known to her.
Reasoning: The claims originally presented by the plaintiff were broader than just informed consent, but her current focus was on Dr. Borsky’s failure to disclose that he was using an investigational lens, a claim that did not necessitate filing a malpractice action.
Judicial Interpretation of Discovery Rulesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the discovery rule to assess whether the plaintiff's lack of knowledge about the experimental lens could toll the statute of limitations.
Reasoning: The Lopez ruling states that the discovery rule, which allows a plaintiff to seek relief from the statute of limitations, is a judicial issue rather than one for a jury.
Lopez Hearing for Determining Accrual of Cause of Actionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A Lopez hearing was required to ascertain the point at which the plaintiff was aware of the facts indicating a potential claim, affecting the statute of limitations.
Reasoning: A 'Lopez hearing' is necessary to determine when the cause of action accrued, with acknowledgment that the plaintiff, Ms. Lombardo, was unaware of the implantation of an experimental lens until late 1990.
Statute of Limitations and the Discovery Rulesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the plaintiff was aware of sufficient facts by January 1988, which would trigger the statute of limitations for her informed consent claim.
Reasoning: The judge determined that the plaintiff became aware of her potential claims against Dr. Borsky by January 1988, when she believed the implanted lens was defective and that Dr. Borsky had failed to inform her of the associated risks.