There is an inherent conflict between a patient’s right to know what happened, and the medical profession’s desire to investigate adverse outcomes without having the results used in a malpractice case. This conflict was perhaps first acknowledged in Steiginga v. Thron, 30 N.J. Super. 423, 425 (App. Div. 1954), where the court observed:

The circumstances of the case must be looked at in the light of—the matter is of sufficient public concern to call for plain speaking—a shocking unethical reluctance on the part of the medical profession to accept its obligations to society and its profession in an action for malpractice.

Other cases spoke of the “community of silence” that has long existed in the medical community. See, e.g., Largey v. Rothman, 110 N.J. 204, 212 (1988) (citing Louisell and Williams, Medical Malpractice §22.12 (1987)). This conflict has long been a source of ligation. See, McClain v. Coll. Hosp., 99 N.J. 346 (1985); Christy v. Salem, 366 N.J. Super. 535 (App. Div. 2004); C.A. v. Bentolila, 219 N.J. 449 (2014); and, most recently, Brugaletta v. Garcia, N.J. (2018).

This content has been archived.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 Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

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]