Velazquez Ex Rel. Velazquez v. Jiminez
172 N.J. 240, 2002 N.J. LEXIS 733, 798 A.2d 51 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
New Jersey's Good Samaritan Act, which provides civil immunity to individuals who render emergency care at the scene of an accident or emergency, does not apply to physicians who provide emergency assistance to a patient within a hospital.
Facts:
- Charmaine Velazquez was admitted to St. Peter’s Medical Center to deliver a baby under the care of her attending physician, Dr. Teresa Jiminez.
- During the delivery, the baby experienced bilateral shoulder dystocia, a complication where both shoulders become lodged against the mother's pubic bone.
- After delivering the baby's head, Dr. Jiminez was unable to deliver the rest of the body and activated an emergency call for assistance.
- Dr. Angela Ranzini, a specialist on duty at the hospital who had no prior doctor-patient relationship with Mrs. Velazquez, responded to the emergency call.
- Dr. Ranzini first attempted to complete the delivery vaginally and, when that failed, assisted in preparing Mrs. Velazquez for an emergency Caesarean section.
- The baby, Conor, was born with severe brain damage due to oxygen loss during the complicated delivery and died before his third birthday.
Procedural Posture:
- Charmaine and Jose Velazquez sued Dr. Ranzini and others in a New Jersey trial court for negligence.
- Dr. Ranzini moved for summary judgment, claiming immunity under the Good Samaritan Act.
- The trial court denied the motion as a matter of law, holding the Act does not apply to emergencies within a hospital.
- A jury returned a verdict finding Dr. Ranzini three percent liable.
- The trial court entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) for Dr. Ranzini on grounds unrelated to the Act.
- The Velazquezes appealed the j.n.o.v. to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court), and Dr. Ranzini cross-appealed the ruling on the Good Samaritan Act.
- The Appellate Division reversed the j.n.o.v. but affirmed the trial court's decision that the Good Samaritan Act does not apply in a hospital.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted Dr. Ranzini's petition for certification on the sole issue of the Good Samaritan Act's applicability.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New Jersey's Good Samaritan Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-1, immunize a physician who renders emergency care to a patient within a hospital?
Opinions:
Majority - Long, J.
No. New Jersey's Good Samaritan Act does not immunize a physician for emergency care rendered within a hospital. The statute's language, providing immunity for care rendered 'at the scene of an accident or emergency' and while 'transporting the victim...to a hospital,' indicates a legislative intent to exclude care provided within a medical facility. The Act's purpose is to encourage aid for victims who might otherwise not receive it, typically in settings that lack proper medical equipment, sanitation, and staff, which is the antithesis of a hospital. As a statute in derogation of the common law right to sue for negligence, it must be construed narrowly, limiting its scope to traditional, out-of-hospital emergencies where the rescuer comes upon the victim by chance.
Dissenting - Verniero, J.
Yes. The Good Samaritan Act can immunize a physician who renders emergency care within a hospital, provided there was no pre-existing duty to act. The statute's plain language does not contain an explicit geographical limitation excluding hospitals from being the 'scene of an...emergency.' The majority's narrow interpretation frustrates the Act's purpose of encouraging medical professionals to respond unhesitatingly to emergencies, regardless of location. The proper inquiry should not be a blanket exclusion of hospitals, but a fact-specific determination of whether the responding physician had a pre-existing duty to assist, which should be determined on remand.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule that definitively excludes in-hospital emergencies from the protections of New Jersey's Good Samaritan Act. By narrowly construing the phrase 'scene of an accident or emergency,' the court limits the statute's application to its traditional context of roadside or other out-of-facility rescues. This holding clarifies that a physician's lack of a pre-existing duty to a specific patient is not, by itself, sufficient to trigger immunity if the aid is rendered within a hospital setting. The ruling places the burden on the New Jersey Legislature to explicitly extend such immunity if it wishes to protect medical professionals in these circumstances.
