NJ Appeals Court Affirms Full Liability for Surgeon Despite Shared Fault
December 1, 2025
By Damian D. Capozzola, Esq., and Jamie Terrence, RN
News
A New Jersey appellate court has affirmed a trial court’s ruling that a surgeon found 60% at fault in a patient’s death must pay the entire $1.6 million verdict. The decision underscores how the state’s Comparative Negligence Act imposes full responsibility on defendants whose share of fault meets or exceeds 60%, even when other medical professionals are partly to blame.
The ruling underscores that, once a defendant’s share of fault passes the statutory threshold under New Jersey law, the duty to pay the full amount of damages becomes fixed. How fault is distributed among others does not diminish that obligation. The court explained that this approach reflects a deliberate legislative choice to prioritize complete recovery for plaintiffs while allowing fairness among defendants to be achieved later through contribution proceedings. The opinion also reinforces the principle that issues of apportionment are distinct from the plaintiff’s right to full satisfaction of a judgment.
The three-judge panel held that the trial court was right to leave the full judgment in place, despite the jury’s finding that another doctor was 40% at fault and was no longer in the case. The court explained that the surgeon could address any imbalance later through a separate contribution action. The appellate court’s reasoning drew heavily on its prior case law, emphasizing that a dismissed party’s absence does not relieve a remaining defendant of the statutory obligation to satisfy the entire judgment.
Background
The lawsuit arose after a patient underwent gallbladder surgery and later died from sepsis. The patient’s family sued the operating surgeon, a hospital, and several healthcare providers, alleging that negligent post-operative care caused the infection and death. Over time, the plaintiffs amended their complaint repeatedly to add additional treating professionals involved in the patient’s care.
Several of those defendants, including two physicians who later became central to the appeal, were dismissed on procedural grounds, most notably the statute of limitations. The surgeon remained as the only active defendant when the case proceeded to trial.
During trial, the surgeon denied negligence and contended that the other doctors who were no longer parties to the lawsuit had failed to diagnose or respond to signs of infection. The trial judge permitted the jury to consider those physicians when allocating fault but instructed that they were no longer defendants. After a two-week trial, the jury found the surgeon negligent and concluded that his conduct was a proximate cause of the patient’s death. The jury attributed 60% of the fault to the surgeon and 40% to one of the dismissed physicians. It awarded $1.43 million in damages for pain, suffering, loss of companionship, and funeral expenses. The final judgment, including prejudgment interest and a Medicaid lien, totaled about $1.57 million.
Following the verdict, the surgeon asked the trial court to “mold” the judgment to reflect his 60% share of fault and to reduce the total amount owed accordingly. He relied on a previous appellate court case that had allowed a defendant to limit exposure when another tortfeasor had been dismissed from the action. The trial court rejected the argument, concluding that more recent Supreme Court authority was controlling and made clear that a defendant found 60% or more at fault remains responsible for the entire verdict under New Jersey’s Comparative Negligence Act. The judge further held that the surgeon’s remedy lay not in altering the verdict but in seeking contribution under the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law.
On appeal, the surgeon argued that the trial court had misapplied the statutes and that fairness required a proportional reduction of the award. The appellate panel disagreed. It held that the Comparative Negligence Act and the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law must be read together. The Comparative Negligence Act determines the plaintiff’s recovery, while the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law governs reimbursement between defendants. Because the surgeon’s share of fault exceeded 60%, the statute entitled the plaintiff to recover the full amount from him alone (if the plaintiff wanted to). The court added that the procedural dismissal of another physician did not extinguish the surgeon’s statutory right to seek contribution from the dismissed physician in a later proceeding. In affirming the judgment, the panel also rejected an evidentiary challenge in which the surgeon claimed the court improperly barred him from cross-examining witnesses with prior pleadings. The panel found those pleadings irrelevant to whether the remaining defendants had breached the standard of care.
What This Means for You
This ruling provides a clear demonstration of how New Jersey’s comparative fault structure balances plaintiff protection with defendant fairness. Under the Comparative Negligence Act, juries must assign percentages of fault totaling 100% among all parties whose conduct contributed to an injury, even if some were dismissed, settled, or never formally named as defendants. The statute then draws a bright line: When any one party’s share of fault reaches 60%, that party becomes jointly and severally liable for the full amount of damages. The purpose of this statute is to prevent a situation where an injured plaintiff receives less than the full recovery merely because one responsible party is unavailable or immune. The price of ensuring that outcome is that the principal defendant must pay the entire award and seek reimbursement from the other at-fault party later.
The decision also underscores how the Comparative Negligence Act and the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law work hand-in-glove. The Comparative Negligence Act governs the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants collectively, while the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law governs the relationship among defendants themselves. The Comparative Negligence Act ensures that the plaintiff receives full compensation when at least one defendant bears primary responsibility. The Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law, by contrast, ensures fairness among defendants by allowing a paying tortfeasor to pursue others for their proportionate shares. In this case, the surgeon must pay the judgment in full but retains the right to file a contribution claim against the dismissed doctor for 40% of the award. That subsequent claim does not reopen the patient’s case or disturb the judgment. It simply reallocates responsibility between professionals based on the same findings of fault.
From a policy perspective, the ruling reaffirms that New Jersey courts will prioritize the injured party’s right to be made whole over apportionment concerns among defendants. The appellate panel’s reliance on a more recent New Jersey Supreme Court case reflects the court’s continuing insistence that procedural dismissals, such as the expiration of the statute of limitations, do not shield a negligent actor from contribution liability. The courts’ consistent view is that such dismissals affect only the plaintiff’s ability to pursue a direct claim, not a co-defendant’s right to equitable reimbursement. That structure is deliberate. It prevents plaintiffs from bearing the loss caused by procedural technicalities while also preserving a path for defendants to balance the equities later.
For medical malpractice plaintiffs in New Jersey, the practical takeaway is straightforward but significant. When a defendant’s share of fault reaches 60% or more, the plaintiff’s ability to collect the full amount of the judgment is secure, even if other actors are no longer part of the case. Dismissals of co-defendants on procedural or technical grounds do not reduce the overall recovery. That ensures predictability and protects plaintiffs from being forced into contribution disputes between defendants. The plaintiff can collect the judgment once from the principal defendant and does not need to navigate the complexities of apportionment or indemnity among the defendants. The case, therefore, strengthens the position of injured parties. This is important because, in complex medical malpractice suits, multiple providers and physicians may have been involved at different times in the patient’s care.
For defendants, the ruling carries a different lesson. It highlights the importance of preserving and documenting contribution rights throughout the litigation process. A defendant who pays more than his or her fair share can pursue others, but that right depends on proper pleadings and timely assertions of cross-claims or third-party claims. Once judgment is entered, a defendant’s path to recovery may depend entirely on how it litigated the case and whether it sought to point to other at-fault defendants in the litigation. The case also serves as a reminder that even procedural dismissals of co-defendants based on limitations, jurisdiction, or technical noncompliance do not eliminate their potential exposure to contribution. A prudent defense strategy then involves maintaining potential cross-claims as long as the record supports them in anticipation of the possibility of post-judgment contribution actions.
The broader implication for the medical community is that New Jersey’s fault allocation system reflects a clear hierarchy of obligations. The law first ensures that the injured patient or family receives full recovery, then provides an avenue for fairness among those whose negligence contributed to the harm. The surgeon in this case stands as a cautionary example. Once the jury found his fault at 60%, his liability to the plaintiff became total, even though another doctor’s negligence accounted for the rest. Yet, the ruling also demonstrates that he is not without remedy. His recourse simply lies in a different forum — through a separate contribution action that shifts part of the loss back where it belongs.
In reaffirming that framework, the Appellate Division reinforced a principle central to New Jersey tort law. The protection of the injured party’s full recovery is paramount, and questions of internal fairness between defendants must wait until afterward. For practitioners and litigators alike, this decision is a reminder that in a comparative-fault jurisdiction, the line between fairness and finality runs through the 60% threshold. Once that is crossed, the defendant’s obligation to make the plaintiff whole is complete. Keep in mind that post-operative infections play a significant role in hospital-acquired medical errors and injuries that cause significant patient harm and even death. Every healthcare provider, from surgeon, attending physician, nurse, nursing assistant, technician, and even housekeeper, shares the responsibility of managing patient care and the patient environment to prevent infections. It requires continual monitoring for the signs and symptoms of possible wound contamination and includes diligent handwashing, early interventions, frequent wound assessment, and environmental management, all captured and preserved by diligent documentation within the medical record.
Damian D. Capozzola, Esq., The Law Offices of Damian D. Capozzola, Los Angeles
Jamie Terrence, RN, President and Founder, Healthcare Risk Services, Former Director of Risk Management Services (2004-2013), California Hospital Medical Center, Los Angeles
Reference
- Decided on Oct. 6, 2025, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-2310-22.
A New Jersey appellate court has affirmed a trial court’s ruling that a surgeon found 60% at fault in a patient’s death must pay the entire $1.6 million verdict. The decision underscores how the state’s Comparative Negligence Act imposes full responsibility on defendants whose share of fault meets or exceeds 60%, even when other medical professionals are partly to blame.
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content