Attorney Jonathan H Lomurro's Legal Cases

Medical malpractice

Cowley v. Virtua Health System

May 04, 2020

OUTCOME: Supreme Court Decision Agreeing with Position

The Supreme Court held that where a patient removed the feeding tube herself, questions about the nurse's response required testimony from an expert. Therefore, it was not a common knowledge case. Comm ... on knowledge can be understood by a jury without the testimony of an expert. Since this was not a common knowledge case, Plaintiff's counsel was required to obtain an affidavit of merit stating the action deviated from the standard of care for nurses.

Personal injury

Morales-Hurtado v. Reinoso

Apr 16, 2020

OUTCOME: Supreme Court Decision Agreeing with Position

Jonathan successfully acted as amicus attorney in the matter to protect the interests of injured plaintiffs through NJAJ. The Supreme Court reprimanded the actions of the defense counsel for his improp ... er actions during trial. They also protected the rights for a plaintiff to use a life-care planner as a witness.

Medical malpractice

Ward v. NJ

Aug 14, 2018

OUTCOME: District Court Opinion Agreeing with Position

Remand was appropriate. A defendant may remove any civil action filed in state court to a federal district court having original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1446, which s ... ets forth procedural requirements for removal, provides "[w]hen a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). This is known as the "rule of unanimity." The court agreed with Plaintiff and remanded to Essex County Court.

Medical malpractice

Afonso v. Bejjani, MD

Nov 29, 2016

OUTCOME: Appellate Decision Agreeing with Position

Jonathan acted as amicus attorney in the matter to protect the interests of injured plaintiffs through NJAJ. Defendant's deposition answers injected confusion in this case, perhaps in part by not quali ... fying his responses when plaintiff's counsel posed the question about the applicable specialty with singular phrasing. Defense counsel did not follow up at the deposition with a clarifying question. Moreover, the report of Dr. Perkel was obtained only about a month before the discovery period ended. Given these circumstances, it was held inequitable to not afford plaintiff an opportunity to obtain a substitute report from a family practice specialist with an appropriate opportunity for the defense to obtain a responsive report.

Medical malpractice

Meehan v. Antonelles

Aug 09, 2016

OUTCOME: Supreme Court Decision Agreeing with Position

Jonathan acted as amicus attorney in the matter to protect the interests of injured plaintiffs through NJAJ. The Court held that the enhanced requirements of section 41 governing the qualifications of ... persons permitted to submit an affidavit of merit, or to provide expert testimony against or in support of a physician, in a medical malpractice action apply only in medical malpractice actions. In all other actions against a licensed professional, including a dentist, section 27 prescribes the qualifications of the person who may submit an affidavit of merit against a licensed professional who is alleged to have acted negligently. The affiant must hold an appropriate license and must demonstrate particular expertise in the general area or specialty involved in the action, but he or she is not required to possess credentials equivalent to those of the licensed professional defendant. Neither the plain language nor the purpose and history of the AOM statute or Patients First Act support importation of the like-credential standard governing physicians in medical malpractice actions to professional negligence actions governed by section 27.

Criminal defense

State v. Moran

Jul 13, 2010

OUTCOME: Remanded to be resentenced in accordance with the new guidelines created by the Supreme Court

A Municipal Court Judge suspended the license of a citizen (without an attorney) for reckless driving based on her attitude in the courtroom. Jonathan Lomurro took the case pro bono to the Supreme Cou ... rt to fight the suspension. Numerous constitutional objections were made and the argument was against unbridled discretion of the judiciary in suspending a license.

Criminal defense

State v. Hoffman

Mar 31, 2008

OUTCOME: Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

Defendant suffered from mental illness and was delusional at the time of offenses (Agg assault, threats, weapons). Defendant applied to Pre Trial Intervention in order to complete a deferral program. ... Defendant was denied based on the fact that the illness could not be cured within the time frame of the diversion. Remanded for trial allowing the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity

Jonathan H Lomurro's Legal Cases (7)

Cowley v. Virtua Health System

Morales-Hurtado v. Reinoso

Ward v. NJ

Afonso v. Bejjani, MD

Meehan v. Antonelles

State v. Moran

State v. Hoffman