Motion for New Trial in Gannon Vs Breitinger Et Al| Trellis.Law

On May 22, 2017 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Sherry Gannon, and Abc Parterships, John Does, Mary Does, New Jersey Manufacturers Insur, Paul Breitinger, Xyz Corporations, for Auto Negligence-Personal Injury (Non-Verbal Threshold) in the District Court of Cape May County.

Preview
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 1 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

Julio Navarro, Esq, (ID# 22322012)
HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, LLP
701 Wiltsey's Mill Road, Bldg. B, Suite 202
Hammonton, NJ 08037
(609) 561-2426
Attorneys for Defendant, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company

Plaintiff, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CAPE MAY COUNTY
SHERRY GANNON LAW DIVISION

vs. DOCKET NO. CPM-L-000223-17

Defendant, CIVIL ACTION

NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS NOTICE OF MOTION TO EDIT DR.
INSURANCE COMPANY, PAUL PRYZBLKOWSI’S DE BENE ESSE
BREITINGER, ET AL. TESTIMONY

TO:
Richard J. Albuquerque, Esq.
D'Arcy Johnson Day, P.C.
3120 Fire Road, Suite 100
Egg Harbor Township, NJ 08234

James Meissler, Esq.
Law Offices of Pamela D. Hargrove
Moorestown Corporate Center, 3rd Floor
224 Strawbridge Drive, Suite 350
Moorestown, NJ 08057

COUNSEL:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned will apply to the above-named Court at the

Cape May County Courthouse, Cape May, New Jersey, on August 30, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., or as

HOAGLAND, LONGO, soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an Order to edit the de bene esse testimony of Dr. P
MORAN, DUNST &
DOUKAS, LLP
40 PATERSON STREET in the within cause of action. Please be advised that we shall rely upon the attached Brief of|
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
98901
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD counsel.
BLOG. B, SUITE 202
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
469 MAPLE AVENUE PROOF OF MAILING
RED BANK, NJ 07701
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 2 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

In compliance with Rule 1:6, et seq., the original of the within Notice of Motion has been

E-filed with the Motion's Clerk of Cape May County and copies have been served upon the

following via the E-Filing system, regular mail, or facsimile, if counsel or party does not

participate in E-Filing.

Richard J. Albuquerque, Esq. James Meissler, Esq.
D'Arcy Johnson Day, P.C. Law Offices of Pamela D. Hargrove
3120 Fire Road, Suite 100 Moorestown Corporate Center, 3rd Floor
Egg Harbor Township, NJ 08234 224 Strawbridge Drive, Suite 350
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff Moorestown, NJ 08057
Ms. Sherry Gannon Attorney(s) for Defendant
Mr. Paul Breitinger

Thereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any

of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

Pursuant to R. 1:6-2(e), the undersigned:

(_) waives oral argument and consents to disposition on the papers;

(xx) does not request oral argument unless opposition is filed;

(_) requests oral argument.

There is presently a September 16, 2019 trial set for this matter.

A proposed form of Order is annexed.

HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS,
HOAGLAND, LONGO,
MORAN, DUNST & LLP
DOUKAS, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant, New Jersey Manufacturers
40 PATERSON STREET
NEW BRUNSWICK, NI Insurance Company

OV Lz
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD
BLDG. B, SUITE 202
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
169 MAPLE AVENUE
RED BANK, NJ 07701 JULIO NAVARRO

b
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 3 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

Dated: August 14, 2019

HOAGLAND, LONGO,
MORAN, DUNST &
DOUKAS, LLP
40 PATERSON STREET
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
98801
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD
BLDG. B, SUITE 202
/AMMONTON, NJ 08037
169 MAPLE AVENUE
RED BANK, NJ 07701
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

Julio Navarro, Esq. (ID# 22322012)
HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, LLP
701 Wiltsey's Mill Road, Bldg. B, Suite 202
Hammonton, NJ 08037
(609) 561-2426
Attorneys for Defendant, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company

Plaintiff, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CAPE MAY COUNTY
SHERRY GANNON LAW DIVISION

vs. DOCKET NO. CPM-L-000223-17

Defendant, CIVIL ACTION

NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS ORDER
INSURANCE COMPANY, PAUL
BREITINGER, ET AL.

THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court on Motion of Hoagland, Longo,

Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP, attorneys for Defendant, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance

Company, for an Order to bar and edit the de bene esse testimony of Dr. P in the within cause of

action, and the Court having reviewed the moving papers and for good cause shown;

IT IS ON THIS day of , 2019,
ORDERED that

e All permanence opinions shall be edited out of the trial video

° pg.20 In. 5-pg.22-In.11

page 22 line 25 — page 23 line 24

HOAGLAND, LONGO, page 19 lines 16-22
MORAN, DUNST &
DOUKAS, LLP
40 PATERSON STREET page 26 lines 3-23
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
08901
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD Page 40 line 7 (the word permanent)
BLDG. B, SUITE 202
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
169 MAPLE AVENUE Page 42 lien 5 (the word permanent)
RED BANK, NJ07701
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

o Page 45 lines 14-18

e All mentions to the Faber test must be edited out of the trial video

o Page 43 line8-page44 line7

o Page 35 line 23 (starting at The and ending at FABER)

o Page 26 line 15-18 (starting with along)

and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of the within Order shall be served upon all

counsel of record via ecourts, or regular mail, if counsel or party does not participate in Ecourts.

JS.C.
Papers filed with the Court:
(_) Answering Papers
(_) Reply Papers

The within Notice of Motion was
(_) Opposed
( ) Unopposed

HOAGLAND, LONGO,
MORAN, DUNST &
DOUKAS, LLP
40 PATERSON STREET
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
08901
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD
BLDG. B, SUITE 202
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
169 MAPLE AVENUE
RED BANK, NJ07701
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 1 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CAPE MAY COUNTY
LAW DIVISION
DOCKET NO. CPM-L-000223-17

Plaintiff,

SHERRY GANNON

vs.

Defendant,

NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS
INSURANCE COMPANY, PAUL
BREITINGER, ET AL.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT,
NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY'S
MOTION TO EDIT DR, PRYZBLKOWSI’S DE BENE ESSE TESTIMONY

HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN,
DUNST & DOUKAS, LLP
Attomeys for Defendant,
New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance
Company
701 Wiltsey's Mill Road, Bldg. B, Suite 202
Hammonton, NJ 08037
(609) 561-2426

JULIO NAVARRO, ESQ.
HOAGLAND, LONGO, On the Brief
MORAN, DUNST &
DOUKAS, LLP
40 PATERSON STREET
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
98901
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD
BLDG. 20;
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
169 MAPLE AVENUE
RED BANK, NJ 07701
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 2 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This matter arises out of a motor vehicle accident that took place on 2/9/16.

The de bene esse of Dr. Pryzblwoski (hereinafter referred to as Dr. P) was taken on

7/16/19. See transcript of de bene esse attached as Exhibit A.

Dr. P issued a report dated 11/30/17. See report attached as Exhibit B.

Plaintiff is subject to the verbal threshold per the declaration page. See Exhibit C.

HOAGLAND, LONGO,
DUNST &
DOUKAS, LLP
40 PATERSON STREET
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
28901
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD
BLDG. B, SUITE 202
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
169 MAPLE AVENUE
RED BANK, NJ 07701
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 3 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

LEGAL ARGUMENT

POINT I

THE COURT SHOULD BAR DR. P FROM TESTIFYING REGARDING PERMANENCY
AT THE TIME OF TRIAL

Relevant testimony:

° pg.20 In. 5-pg.22-In.11

° page 22 line 25 — page 23 line 24

page 19 lines 16-22

page 26 lines 3-23

Page 40 line 7 (the word permanent)

° Page 42 lien 5 (the word permanent)

° Page 45 lines 14-18

At the time of the accident plaintiff was subject to the so-called “verbal threshold” [as set
forth under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a)] as evidenced by plaintiff's declaration page. (See copy of]
declaration page attached hereto as Exhibit “C”).

In order to establish a prima facie case under the statute, Plaintiff must provide a showing
that the alleged injuries are permanent in accordance with the definition under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-
8(a). That showing must be based on objective medical evidence.

N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a), as amended restricts recovery on non-economic loss damages. The recent
amendment limits recovery to the following types of injuries:

(1) death;
(2) dismemberment;
(3) significant disfigurement or significant scarring;
HOAGLAND, LONGO,
MORAN, DUNST &
DOUKAS, LLP
(4) displaced fractures;
40 PATERSON STREET
(5) loss of a fetus; or
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ (6) a permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other
38k
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD
than scarring or disfigurement.
BLDG. B, SUITE 202
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
169 MAPLE AVENUE,
In Davidson the NJ Supreme Court made it clear that in order to prove a permanent injury
RED BANK, NJ 07701 an expert must rely on objective medical evidence. Davidson v. Slater, 189 N.J. 166, 190, 914
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 4 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

A.2d 282, 296 (2007). The Davidson court cited to N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.5 for a list of accepted
diagnostic tests to establish the objective medical evidence needed to show a permanent injury.
See Id. Next, the Davidson court noted that range of motion tests are not sufficient to establish a
permanent injury as they do not appear on NJAC 11:3-4.5 list of accepted diagnostic tests. See
Id.

A. Sacroiliitis

Dr. P’s 11/30/17 report makes it clear that the only permanent injury he found from the
accident was sacroiliitis. See Exhibit B at last paragraph of page 5. During his cross-examination
Dr. P testified that he reached that diagnosis based on plaintiffs subjective complaints and his
physical examination, including the FABER test, of plaintiff. See Exhibit A at page 26 lines 3-
22. Dr. P conceded that he never mentioned conducting a FABER test in either his notes or in his
narrative report. See Exhibit A at page 43 line 8-page44 line7. Dr. P acknowledged that he did
not rely on diagnostic tests to reach the conclusion that plaintiff's sacroiliitis injury was
permanent. See Exhibit A at page 40 lines6-15.

As Dr. P did not rely on an accepted diagnostic test to show a permanent injury, all his
opinions on permanency as to sacroiliitis must be barred.

Additionally, as the FABER test was never mentioned in the narrative report or notes
mention of same must be barred at the time of trial.

o Page 43 line8-page44 line7

o Page 35 line 23 (starting at The and ending at FABER.)

B. Spinal injuries

Dr. P’s 11/30/17 report makes it clear that the only permanent injury he found from the
accident was sacroiliitis. See Exhibit B at last paragraph of page 5. However, plaintiffs counsel
HOAGLAND, LONGO,
MORAN, DUNST &
DOUKAS, LLP
elicited testimony from their expert that plaintiff had also suffered permanent injuries to the spine.
40 PATERSON STREET
See Exhibit A at pg.20 In. 5-pg.22-In.11 AND page 22 line 25 — page 23 line 24.
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ.
3
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD
It is also well settled that an expert's testimony at trial may be limited to opinions
BLDG. B, SUITE 202
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
expressed within the expert's report provided as part of discovery. Conrad v. Robbi, 341 N.J.
169 MAPLE AVENUE,
Super. 424, 440-41, 775 A.2d 562 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 210, 785 A.2d 438 (2001).
RED BANK, NJ 07701
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 5 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

In his narrative report Dr. P never opined that plaintiff had a permanent injury to the discs
in her spine. Rather, Dr. P only opined that plaintiff had a permanent injury in the form of
sacroiliitis. See Exhibit B at last paragraph of page 5.

This new testimony (Exhibit A at pg.20 In. 5-pg.22-In.11 AND page 22 line 25 — page 23
line 24.) are highly prejudicial as it again seeks to change the opinion of the doctor to something
new on the day of trial. Accordingly, these new permanency opinions must be barred.

a. Aggravation

Plaintiffs counsel may try to argue that the “aggravation” opinion by Dr. P means that
plaintiff suffered a permanent injury to the spine in this matter. As Dr. P did not review any prior
records this argument has no merit. Additionally, Dr. P admitted that his “aggravation” opinion
was based only on plaintiffs subjective complaints.

The New Jersey Supreme Court, in the case of Davidson v. Slater, 189 N.J. 166, 185-86,
914 A.2d 282, (2007), set forth the seminal analysis of the proofs required of a Plaintiff who is
alleging aggravation of a pre-existing injury or illness. The Court began by addressing the nature
of proximate cause and the fundamental burden a Plaintiff bears in proving same.

“We reviewed proximate cause-of-injury principles in Reynolds v. Gonzalez, 172 N.J.
266, 798 A.2d 67 (2002), and explained the fundamental aspects of the burden of production that
a plaintiff bears.”

One of the underlying principles of tort law is that "an actor's conduct must not only be
tortious in character but it must also be a legal cause of the invasion of another's interest."
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 9 cmt. a (1965) (Restatement). It follows from that principle that
the issue of a defendant's liability cannot be presented to the jury simply because there is some
evidence of negligence. "There must be evidence or reasonable inferences therefrom showing a
proximate causal relation between defendant's negligence, if found by the jury," and the resulting
injury. Germann v. Matriss, 55 N.J. 193, 205, 260 A.2d 825 (1970).

Similarly, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts states that
[t]he plaintiff must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion
that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a cause in fact of the result. A
mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure
speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of
the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.
HOAGLAND, LONGO,
MORAN, DUNST & [W. Page Keeton et. al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 41, at 269 (Sth ed. 1984)
DOUKAS, LLP
(Prosser & Keeton).]
40 PATERSON STREET
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
98901
[Id, at 284, 798 A.2d 67.]”
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD
Davidson v. Slater, 189 N.J. 166, 185 (2007)
BLDG. B, SUITE 202
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
169 MAPLE AVENUE,
In personal injury actions, “a plaintiff generally bears the burden of production in respect
RED BANK, NJ 07701 of demonstrating that the accident was the proximate cause of the injury aggravation or new
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 6 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

permanent injury to the previously injured body part.” Davidson, supra, 189 N.J, at 185. (Citing
O'Brien (Newark) Cogeneration, Inc. v. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of Am., 361 N.J. Super. 264,
274-75 (App. Div. 2003) (explaining that in routine personal injury aggravation claims plaintiff
must bear burden of production that defendant's negligence was proximate cause of injuries and
damages suffered)(emphasis added)). “Such evidence provides essential support for the pled
theory of a plaintiff's cause of action and a plaintiff's failure to produce such evidence can
result in a directed verdict for defendant.” Id. at 186. (emphasis added)

“It is generally plaintiff's burden to prove not only that defendant was negligent, but also
that defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries and damages suffered (emphasis
added).” O’Brien, supra, 361 N.J. Super. at 274, “Apportionment of damages based on causation
has [long] been favored" by courts in this State.” Ibid. “Thus, plaintiff, generally, must
apportion or relate damages to defendant's wrongful acts.” Ibid. “A defendant should be
responsible only for "the value of the interest he [or she] destroyed.’" Ibid. (Quoting Scafidi v.
Seiler, 119 N.J. 93, 112 (1990)).

Therefore, “in a routine personal injury aggravation claim, plaintiffs must separate those
damages caused by a particular defendant's negligence from any prior or post injuries or
conditions. Davidson, supra (Emphasis Added)

“When aggravation of a pre-existing injury is pled by a plaintiff, comparative medical
evidence is necessary as part of a plaintiff's prima facie and concomitant verbal threshold
demonstration in order to isolate the physician's diagnosis of the injury or injuries that are
allegedly "permanent" as a result of the subject accident. Causation is germane to the
plaintiff's theory of aggravation of a pre-existing injury or new independent injury to an already
injured body part. Davidson v. Slater, 189 N.J. 166, 185-86, 914 A.2d 282, 293-94 (2007)
(emphasis added.)

In the matter at hand Dr. P opined that plaintiff had suffered aggravation of injuries to the
neck and lower back and then tried to opine that these injuries were permanent. See Exhibit A at
page 20 lines 7-14.

First, a review of Dr. P’s report shows that he did not review any pre-accident records.

Second, he admitted that when he used the term aggravation he was basing it solely on
plaintiff's subjective complaints. See Exhibit A at page 27 lines 1-12.

HOAGLAND, LONGO,
Dr. P cannot conduct the appropriate analysis required under Davidson in order to make
MORAN, DUNST &
DOUKAS, LLP an aggravation complaint. As such, Dr. P cannot argue that plaintiff suffered a permanent injury
40 PATERSON STREET
to the neck and lower back.
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
98901
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD
BLDG. B, SUITE 12
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
169 MAPLE AVENUE
RED BANK, NJ 07701,
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 7 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

POINT II

THE COURT SHOULD EDIT THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF DR. P’S DE BENE
ESSE

e Relevant testimony: pg.20 In. 5-pg.22-In.11

It is also well settled that an expert's testimony at trial may be limited to opinions

expressed within the expert's report provided as part of discovery. Conrad v. Robbi, 341 N.J.

Super. 424, 440-41, 775 A.2d 562 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 210, 785 A.2d 438 (2001).

In the matter at bar Dr. P issued a report dated 11/30/17 in which he opined that the only

permanent injury plaintiff suffered from the subject accident was sacroiliitis. See Exhibit B at last

paragraph of page 5. On pg.20 In. 5-pg.22-In.11 plaintiff's counsel has asked the question

regarding permanency in a way that implies that all the conditions listed from pg.20 In7-14 are

permanent. This directly contradicts Dr. P’s report that explicitly noted that the only permanent

injury plaintiff suffered was sacroiliitis. See exhibit B.

It would be tremendously prejudicial for plaintiff's counsel to change the scope of their

expert’s permanency finding on the day of trial, especially because it add various permanent

injuries not mentioned in the report. On page 21 lines14-24 the undersigned tried to explain to

plaintiffs counsel what the problem was so they could correct it.

e Relevant testimony: page 22 line 25 — page 23 line 24
HOAGLAND, LONGO,
MORAN, DUNST &
DOUKAS, LLP
40 PATERSON STREET
NEW BRUNSWICK, NU It is also well settled that an expert's testimony at trial may be limited to opinions
3 1
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD
BLDG. B, SUITE 202 expressed within the expert's report provided as part of discovery. Conrad v. Robbi, 341 N.J.
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
169 MAPLE AVENUE,
RED BANK, NJ 0701 Super. 424, 440-41, 775 A.2d 562 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 210, 785 A.2d 438 (2001).
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 8 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

First, Dr. P did not discuss a prognosis in his narrative report and therefore should be

barred from offering this opinion at the time of trial.

Second, in his narrative report Dr. P never opined that plaintiff had a permanent injury to

the discs in her spine. Rather, Dr. P only opined that plaintiff had a permanent injury in the form

of sacroiliitis. See Exhibit B at last paragraph of page 5. This new testimony is highly prejudicial

as it again seeks to change the opinion of the doctor to something new on the day of trial.

Third, during his direct testimony Dr. P did not discuss what parts of the spine had been

affected by the accident. Additionally, he did not discuss with the jury how he arrived at the

conclusion that any levels had been affected by the accident. As such, this testimony is a net

opinion and must be barred.

HOAGLAND, LONGO,
MORAN, DUNST &
DOUKAS, LLP
40 PATERSON STREET
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
98901
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD
BLDG. B, SUITE 202
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
169 MAPLE AVENUE
RED BANK, NJ07701
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 9 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that Defendant, New Jersey

Manufacturers Insurance Company's Motion for to edit the de bene esse testimony of Dr. P be

granted.

Respectfully submitted,

HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN,
DUNST & DOUKAS, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant, New Jersey Manufacturers
Insurance Company

» J
JULIO NAVARRO
Dated: August 14, 2019
V

HOAGLAND, LONGO,
MORAN, DUNST &
DOUKAS, LLP
40 PATERSON STREET
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
98901
701 WILTSEY'S MILL ROAD
BLDG. B, SUI 202
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
169 MAPLE AVENUE
RED BANK, NJ07701
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 1 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

EXHIBIT A
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 2 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

PETER PRYZBLKOWSKI, M.D. COPY
Page 1 | Page 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY | INDEX
LAW DIVISION - CAPE MAY COUNTY PETER PRYZBLKOWSKI, MD
DOCKET NO. CPM-L-223-17
| PAGE
tee |{
SHERRY GANNON, DEPOSITION OF»
By Ms, Prinz. - Direct
Plaintiff, PETER By Mr, Navarro - Cross 25
PRYZBLKOWSKI, MD
vs. By Ms. Prinz - Redirect 44
PAUL BREITINGER, NEW JERSEY aes
MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, JOHN DOES, MARY EXHIBITS
DOES, ABC PARTNERSHIPS AND MARKED DESCRIPTION PAGE
XYZ CORPORATIONS, JOINTLY,
SEVERALLY AND/OR IN TI 2
10 we E)
--
ALTERNATIVE, : ai
Defendants. 12
13
Oral sworn testimony of PETER PRYZBLKOWSKI, MD, 14
held at Relievus, 222 New Road, Suite 103, Linwood, 15
New Jersey, taken on Tuesday, July 16, 2019, 16
commencing at 6:04 p.m., before Darlene Sillitoc, 17
Cestified Court Reporter (License No. 30X100102300), 18
and Notary Public within and for the State of New 19
Jersey. 20
21
ZANARAS REPORTING & VIDEO, LLC 22
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 938 23
Philadelphia, PA 19103 24
(215) 790-7857 25

Page 2 Page 4
1 APPEARANCES; LITIGATION SUPPORT INDEX
D'ARCY JOHNSON DAY Direction to Witness not to Answer
BY: KELLI A. PRINZ, ESQ. Page Line Page Line
AND: RICHARD A. ALBUQUERQUE, ESQ. NONE
3120 Fire Road, Suite 100
Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey 08234 Requests for Production of Documents
(609) 641-6200 Page Line Page Line
kap@djdlawyers.com NONE
Attomey for PlaintitT
HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, LLP
BY: JULIO NAVARRO, ESQ, Stipulations
701 Witsey's Mill Road Page Line Page Line
ilding 3, Suite 202 NONE
Hamunanton, New Jersey 08037
(609) 561-2426
10 Jnavarro@hoaglandiongo.com Questions Marked
‘Attomey for Defendant New Jersey Page Line Page Line
12 Maiufacturers NONE
12 LAW OFFICES OF PAMELA D. HARGROVE il
BY: JAMES P. MEISSLER, ESQ. 12
13 244 Strawbridge Drive. 13
2nd Floor, Suite 250
14 Moarestown, New Jersey 08057 14
(856) 642-2901 15
james.meissler@allstate.com

cc
1s
Attomey for Defendant Breitinger ay
16 iB
17 ALSO PRE: ig
18 M ZANARAS, VIDEOGRAPHER,
is
20 21
ar 22
22 23
23 24
246
2s 25

1 (Pages 1 to 4)
ZANARAS REPORTING & VIDEO
1.877.GO.DEPOS
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 3 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

PETER PRYZBLKOWSKI, M.D.

Page 5 Page 7
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today is July 16, the state of New Jersey?
2019. This is the videotaped deposition of Dr. Peter A Tam.
Pryzblkowski, Going on the record, and the time is Q. And how long have you been licensed?
6:04 p.m. A. I've been licensed in the state of New
Appearance of counse! will be noted on Jersey since 2013.
the transcript. Q. And, Doctor, are you board certified?
Will the court reporter please swear in A, Tam.
the doctor? Q So what does it means to be board
--- certified?
10 PETER PRYZBLKOWSKI,MD, having been 10 AL So, to be board certified -- I have two
al first duly sworn, testified as follows: qi board certifications, anesthesia critical care and
12 wee 12 interventional pain management. To be board
13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. You may 13 certified, you have to take a standardized written
14 proceed. 1é test for anesthesia, critical care. You then have to
is DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 pass that standardized test and take an oral
16 BY MS. PRINZ: 16 examination, which | took in Chicago in 2014. After
17 Q Doctor, please introduce yourself to our 17 you pass that examination, | sat for another board
18 jury. 18 certification in pain management, which ! also passed
19 A. My name is Dr. Peter Pryzblkowski. 19 in 2014.
20 Q And what kind of a doctor are you? 20 Q. And in your practice, do you treat both
2i A. 1am an interventional pain specialist. 2i patients who have suffered trauma and those patients
22 Q For the benefit of our jury, can you 22 who are suffering pain from nontrauma-related
23 describe what an interventional pain specialist does? 23 conditions?
24 A. So I treat patients with acute and 24 A Ido.
25 chronic pain complaints. My typical day is spent 25 Q And as a board certified doctor

Page 6 Page 8
evaluating patients in the office. J then usually specializing in pain management and anesthesiology,
spend halfmy day doing interventional or pain can you describe to the jury how you go about
procedures to help decrease patient's pain complaints. diagnosing your patients’ prablems?
Q. Would you share with our jury some of A So I first see the patient for a
your educational and professional background? consultation. | go over their subjective complaints.
A I received my bachelor of arts from J take a history of the patient's complaints. I
Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, perform a physical exam. And if the patient has
Pennsylvania, graduated with honors in 2005. J then diagnostic records, I review those diagnostic records.
did four years of medical school at UMDNJ, Robert Wood Q So once you identify a problem with a
10 Johnson, which is now called Rutgers Medical Schoo! 10 particular patient, what are some of types of things
11 and graduated 2009. Graduated at the top of my class, 11 that you can do to treat that patient?
12 Alpha Omega Aipha, National Medical Honor Society, 1 12 A. So we employ an approach of both
13 did a one-year transitional intemship at Albert 13 medication management. So that's the use of both oral
14 Einstein Medical Center in North Philadelphia. I then 14 and topical pain medicines to alleviate chronic pain
15 did a three years of anesthesia and critical care 15 complaints. And I typically come up with a game plan
16 residency at the University of Pennsylvania. I served 16 in terms of interventional or pain procedure outlook
17 as Chief Resident my final year at Penn. Asa 17 so I can kind of let patients know what they can
18 resident. And then | followed my residency up with a 18 choose from or what can help them with their pain
19 one-year international pain fellowship. After 19 complaints.
20 completing my pain fellowship at Penn, I stayed on 20 Q. Doctor, as you know, we're here today
21 faculty there for a périod of about two and-a-half 21 because on February 9th, 2016, Sherry Gannon was
22 years as an assistant professor. | then joined the 22 injured when another car struck the driver's side door
23 group I'm currently with which is called Relievus in 23 of her vehicle. Did you treat her for the injuries
24 January of 2017. 24 she sustained in that car accident?
25 Q. Are you licensed to practice medicine in 25 A, I did.

2 (Pages 5 to 8)
ZANARAS REPORTING & VIDEO
1.877.GO.DEPOS
CPM-L-000223-17 08/14/2019 4:10:51 PM Pg 4 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20191439573

PETER PRYZBLKOWSKI, M.D.

Page 9 Page 11
MS. PRINZ: I would offer Dr, Peter A. So pertinent findings for a physical
Pryzblkowski as an expert witness in pain management exam, I like to go from headto toe. So starting with
relative to his treatment of Sherry Gannon for the the cervical spine, her overall range of motion was
injuries she sustained in the February 9, 2016, crash. reduced five percent. She had mild tendemess and
MR. NAVARRO: No objection. tightness to palpation of her cervical spine. Her
Q. Doctor, are you familiar with the facet joints - which are, I call them, the knuckle
standard of reasonable degree of medical certainty? joints of the spine -- were tender to palpation
A. Tam. bilaterally from C3 to C7. She had mild pain which
Q Task today that you keep all of your was elicited with range of motion, flexion, extension,
19 opinions within that standard. Okay? 10 and Jateral flexion ofher neck. She had some trigger
11 A. Okay. il points which are identified.
12 Q. So, Doctor, I see that you have your 12 Her compression test, which is a test
13 laptop office file here in front of you. Please feel 13 where J push down on the patient's head, was negative
14 free to refer to your file today to refresh your 14 for any numbness or tingling going do

Case Info

Judge

James H Pickering Jr Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 14, 2019

Case Filing Date

May 22, 2017

County

Parties

Abc Parterships Defendant
Abc Parterships Defendant
James Patrick Meissler Attorney for the Defendant
John Does Defendant
Julio Navarro Attorney for the Defendant
Mary Does Defendant
New Jersey Manufacturers Insur Defendant
Paul Breitinger Defendant
Richard John Albuquerque Attorney for the Plaintiff
Sherry Gannon Plaintiff
Xyz Corporations Defendant
Xyz Corporations Defendant
MELISSA BISHOP Attorney
JAMES BIRCHMEIER Attorney
RACHEL VICARI Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: Gannon Vs Breitinger Et Al

Preview

Case Info

Parties