Preview:

a4559-08.opn.html
Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4559-08T34559-08T3
TOMMIE S. REID,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE &
DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY and
DR. PETER RICE,
Defendants-Respondents.
Submitted April 14, 2010 - Decided
Before Judges Fisher and Sapp-Peterson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket
No. L-8330-08.
Tommie Reid, appellant pro se.
Dughi & Hewit, attorneys for respondents (Gary L. Riveles, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this pro se appeal, plaintiff appeals from the Law Division order dismissing his complaint alleging medical
negligence in the wrongful removal of his testicles by defendant, Dr. Peter Rice, who was employed by defendant,
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), at the time of the surgery. We affirm.
Prior to commencing this action, plaintiff failed to file a Notice of Claim pursuant to the New Jersey Tort Claims Act
(TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3. The Law Division judge granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for non-
compliance with the notice provisions under the TCA. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration which the court also
denied. The present appeal followed.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4559-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 5:15:07 PM]




a4559-08.opn.html
On appeal, plaintiff raises the following points for our consideration:
[POINT I]
DEFAULT
A DEFAULT JUDG[]MENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE OPPOSING PARTY
HAD NO LEGITIMATE DEFENSE, JUNE 19, 2008.
[POINT II]
PROOF HEARING
PLAINTIFF WAS MADE TO REQUEST SECOND PROOF HEARING AUGUST 29, 2008,
BECAUSE PURPORTED MISPLACED [SIC] FIRST REQUEST FOR HEARING, JUNE 25, 2008,
ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2008, PROOF HEARING DISMISSED NO DEFENDANT APPEARED.
[POINT III]
ORAL ARGUMENT
WAS NEVER SCHEDULED, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF['S] EVIDENCE IS MORE THAN
SUBSTANTIAL IN PROVING HIS CLAIM.
[POINT IV]
LEGAL COUNSEL
FIRST TIME PRO SE PLEA TO THE COURT TO EXCUSE MY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF THE
APPLIED LAW AND FURTHER EXCUSE MY INSUFFICIENT MEANS OF RETAINING
REPRESENTATION, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE[,] ALLOW ME TO DEFEND MYSELF
ON THE MERITS OF THIS CASE.
[POINT V]
TORT
TORT . . . A TECHNICALITY SHOULD NOT TAKE PRECEDENT OVER THE INTENDED
PURPOSE OF LAW.
The TCA re-establishes sovereign immunity "unless there is a specific statutory provision imposing liability." Kahrar
v. Borough of Wallington, 171 N.J. 3, 10 (2002). Included in the statutory scheme is a notice requirement, which is a
jurisdictional precondition to filing suit. Williams v. Maccarelli, 266 N.J. Super. 676, 678 (App. Div. 1993). N.J.S.A. 59:8-
3 provides: "No action shall be brought against a public entity or public employee under this act unless the claim
upon which it is based shall have been presented in accordance with the procedure set forth in this chapter." Notice
must be filed within ninety days of the accrual of the cause of action, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, and in the discretion of the
court, leave may be granted to file a late notice of claim upon a showing of "extraordinary circumstances" for the
failure to file a timely notice provided leave is sought within a reasonable time and not more than two years from
the accrual of the cause of action has elapsed. N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, or sought leave to file a late notice of claim under
N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. Therefore, plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4559-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 5:15:07 PM]




a4559-08.opn.html
Affirmed.
N.J.S.A. 59:8-3 was amended in 1994 to include the phrase "public employee." L. 1994, c. 49, § 2.
(continued)
(continued)
4
A-4559-08T3
July 22, 2010
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4559-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 5:15:07 PM]

Download a4559-08.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law