McKENNEY v. JERSEY CITY MEDICAL CENTER


771 A.2d 1153 (2001)

167 N.J. 359

Jarrell McKENNEY, an infant by his Guardians ad Litem, Edward J. McKENNEY, and Jannie McKenney, and Edward J. McKenney and Jannie McKenney, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JERSEY CITY MEDICAL CENTER, Jersey City Family Health Center, Administrators, Employees and/or Officers of the Jersey City Family Health Center 1 thru 24 (fictitiously denominated), Alexander N. Prezioso, M.D., Long-Gue Hu, M.D., Euk Kim, M.D., Director of Ob/Gyn Clinic of the Family Health Center and Sipra De, Defendants-Respondents, and Krergrkrai Hasanee, M.D., Dilara E. Samadi, M.D., Surachat Chatkupt, M.D., John/Jane Doe Physicians 1 thru 43 (fictitiously denominated) and Radiologists/Sonogram Readers 1 thru 49 (fictitiously denominated), Defendants.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Decided May 16, 2001.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Eric Stewart Lentz, Plainfield, argued the cause for appellants (Garces & Grabler, attorneys).

Sam Rosenberg, Parsippany, argued the cause for respondent Long-Gue Hu, M.D. (Reiseman Sharp Brown & Rosenberg, attorneys).

Roger G. Ellis, Clark, argued the cause for respondent Sipra De (Bumgardner & Ellis, attorneys).

Thomas H.E. Hallett, Benardsville, argued the cause for respondents Jersey City Medical Center and Jersey City Family Health Center, Administrators, Employees and/or Officers of the Jersey City Family Health Center 1 thru 24 (fictitiously denominated).

Judith A. Wahrenberger, Springfield, submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of respondent Euk Kim, M.D. (Wahrenberger & O'Brien, attorneys).

Craig S. Combs, Morristown, submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of respondent Alexander N. Prezioso, M.D. (Giblin & Combs, attorneys).


The opinion of the Court was delivered by COLEMAN, J.

This medical malpractice case raises two narrow issues: whether defense counsel has an obligation to communicate material changes in defense witnesses' testimony to counsel for the plaintiffs when defense counsel discovers that there will be such change prior to the witness testifying and whether plaintiffs were entitled to a mistrial when the anticipated change in testimony...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases