Professional Liability Matters

Arbitration agreements are relatively common in nursing home agreements but often are not enforced by courts. One basis courts rely upon in refusing to enforce arbitration agreements are state court rules that require certain claims to proceed to trial. The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear the appeal of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision requiring a survival claim to proceed to arbitration, despite a local rule that requires trial for such claims. The decision provides some clarity on how courts will assess clashes between the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and contrary state laws at a time when clarity is needed on this topic in light of the recent decision by CMS (Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services) to postpone its ban on arbitration agreements in nursing homes.

The Automatic Stay under U.S. Bankruptcy law is a powerful tool in the judicial system. By filing for bankruptcy, a person or entity immediately creates a cocoon of safety that is generally impenetrable without subjecting the offending party to punitive repercussions. In fact, even parties without knowledge of the bankruptcy filing may nevertheless face consequences from the presiding bankruptcy court for violating the Automatic Stay. Of course, this does not mean that parties can use a bankruptcy petition solely to protect themselves from outside pressures. The bankruptcy rules also allow a court to impose sanctions upon a party or its attorney if it the petition is found to have been filed frivolously. However, a Pennsylvania trial court recently reaffirmed that it remains within the bankruptcy court’s sole discretion to do so, and that any similar state court claim is preempted by federal law.

The particular nuances of each state’s affidavit of merit rule can be difficult to navigate. Since affidavits of merit (AOM) are so critical to malpractice actions, we do our best here at Professional Liability Matters to keep you informed of the particular differences among states and various defenses that can be raised in a malpractice suit requiring an AOM. Last week we blogged about a particular exception to the AOM rule in New Jersey, which you can check out here. This week we turn our attention to another New Jersey case, in which the court again finds an exception, but under different circumstances, when it comes to the AOM requirement.

As you are undoubtedly aware, Professional Liability Matters previously circulated this handy table addressing the various affidavit of merit requirements throughout the country. Generally, in jurisdictions that require it, an affidavit of merit is necessary in order to maintain a malpractice claim against specified professionals, often including attorneys. But what is a “malpractice claim”? Suing a professional does not always equal malpractice. For example, a claim for malicious use of process is based upon a different standard than negligence. So this raises the question, is an affidavit of merit still required? In a case of first impression, a New Jersey Appeals Court recently ruled that it is not.