SIMONE GALIK, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF VIVIAN GALIK, HER MOTHER, DECEASED AND SIMONE GALIK, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CLARA MAASS MEDICAL CENTER A HOSPITAL CORPORATION, ITS SERVANTS, AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES, JOSEPH M. FUSCO, M.D., RICHARD ROE, JANE DOE AND MARY ROE, (FICTITIOUS NAMES INTENDING TO DESIGNATE PHYSICIANS AND/OR NURSES INVOLVED IN THE CARE, MANAGEMENT, DIAGNOSIS, AND TREATMENT) AND EACH OF THEM JOINTLY, SEVERALLY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEFENDANTS, AND MATTHEW DELUCA, M.D., KESHAVMURTHY SHIVASHANKAR, M.D., ROBERT ACOSTA, M.D., DAVID GREIFINGER, M.D. AND EDWIN GANGEMI, M.D., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS., 167 N.J. 341

Summary

Plaintiff contended that service of two expert reports on defendants' medical malpractice insurance carriers before the filing of the complaint constituted substantial compliance with § 2A:53A-27. There was no evidence in the record that any defendant has been prejudiced by plaintiff's filing of an unsworn and uncertified expert's report approximately eight months before filing the complaint. The second and third elements of substantial compliance - that the plaintiff took a "series of steps" to comply with the statute and generally met its purpose - were also satisfied. The supreme court determined the case involved the substantial compliance doctrine. There was no intention on the part of the law makers that such a statute should be used as a stumbling block or pitfall to prevent recovery by meritorious claimants.