This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Howard (P) came under the care of D for neck pain and related claims. P had a history of cervical spine disease. Following a 1991 car accident, P was examined by doctors who determined that he had severe spinal stenosis and recommended that he undergo surgery, which P declined to do, even though the condition was worsening progressively. In January of 1997, P was involved in another car accident causing, among other things, cervical and low back injuries. P sought the care of Dr. Boston Martin, who had treated him after the 1991 accident. Dr. Martin concluded that the spinal condition had worsened significantly and recommended that he be seen at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) by D, a Professor of Neurology and the Director of UMDNJ's Spine Center of New Jersey. D determined that P needed surgery to correct the cervical myelopathy secondary to cervical stenosis and a significantly large C3-C4 disc herniation. Because of the serious nature of the surgery, D recommended that Mrs. Howard attend a second consultation. D claims that he informed Ps of the significant risks of the surgery, including paralysis. Ps deny that they were informed of such risks. Ps contend that D told them that he was Board Certified and that he had performed approximately sixty corpectomies each year in the past eleven years. Mrs. Howard claims that she was opposed to the surgery but that Ps decided to go through with it based on D's specific claims of skill and experience. D denies that he represented that he was Board Certified in Neurosurgery and that he claimed to have performed sixty corpectomies per year for eleven years. The surgery was unsuccessful. Ps filed a malpractice action. Ps moved to amend their complaint to add a count of fraud based on D's alleged misrepresentation of his experience and credentials. The trial court denied the motion, finding that a fraud count would cloud the issues presented. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal and reversed and remanded with the direction to the trial court to allow amendment of the complaint to allege a deceit-based claim. The Supreme Court granted D's motion for leave to appeal. It held that A fraud or deceit-based claim is unavailable to address the claim that the physician misrepresented his skill and credentials during the pre-surgery consultation. Ps may attempt to prove that D's alleged misrepresentations about his credentials and experience present a claim based on a lack of informed consent to the surgical procedure.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.