D.D. v. University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, 213 N.J. 130

Summary

The New Jersey Supreme Court addresses whether attorney inattention, together with the plaintiff's medical and emotional conditions, constitutes extraordinary circumstances permitting a late notice of tort claim under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. The Court also considers whether an oral notification can satisfy the Act's written notice requirement through substantial compliance. The opinion concludes that attorney inattention or incompetence does not satisfy the extraordinary-circumstances standard and that substantial compliance cannot make an unwritten notice timely.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff's medical and emotional complaints, together with her first attorney's inattention or incompetence, did not constitute extraordinary circumstances under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. Attorney inattention, malpractice, ignorance of the statutory deadline, and otherwise inadequate medical proofs cannot, alone or in combination, satisfy the heightened statutory standard.
2. The doctrine of substantial compliance cannot excuse the statutory requirement that a notice of tort claim be filed in writing. Oral notice, even if it contains the information required by N.J.S.A. 59:8-4, does not constitute substantial compliance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's medical and emotional conditions, considered together with the inattention or incompetence of her first attorney, constituted extraordinary circumstances under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 permitting a late notice of tort claim.
2. Whether the doctrine of substantial compliance could excuse plaintiff's failure to file a written notice of tort claim within the statutory ninety-day period when she allegedly provided information orally to defendants.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded