The Supreme Court Takes Up a Paramedics Immunity Case

The Supreme Court announced late yesterday that it granted certification in Almonte v. Township of Union. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Under the circumstances presented, are the paramedics entitled to immunity because they provided advanced life support services 'in accordance with this act' as required by N.J.S.A. 26:2K-14, specifically, N.J.S.A. 26:2K-10(a), which requires that the paramedic 'maintains direct voice communication with and is taking orders from a licensed physician or physician directed registered professional nurse'”?

This was a tragic case involving allegedly permanent and severe brain damage to a 21-month toddler. The Law Division granted a defense motion for summary judgment based on statutory immunity and denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike the immunity defense. In an unpublished per curiam opinion by a two-judge panel, the Appellate Division affirmed those results.

The 2025-26 General Assignment Order

Chief Justice Rabner announced the 2025-26 General Assignment Order. It is available here....

New Jersey's Charity Care Program for Hospitals is Not a Per Se Unconstitutional Taking of Property

Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. State, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). New Jersey has had a charity care program, in one form or another, for 178 years. As Justice Fasciale summarized the current charity care program in his opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court, under the current program "hospitals cannot turn away a patient for inability to pay, N.J.S.A. 26:2H-18.64, and patients who qualify for charity care shall not be billed for services rendered, N.J.A.C. 10:52-11.4. Instead, ‘disproportionate share hospitals' (DSHs), or hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients, see N.J.S.A. 26:2H-18.52, receive annual subsidies from the Health Care Subsidy Fund (HCSF) in exchange for providing charity care, see N.J.S.A. 26:2H-18.52, .58, .58d."...

A Municipal Court Administrator is Employed by the Township, Not the Administrative Office of the Courts

Palmisano v. State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The opening paragraph of Judge Marczyk's opinion for the Appellate Division well encapsulates what the appeal was about and what the result was. "Plaintiff Lindsay Palmisano appeals from the trial court's April 1, 2024 order dismissing her complaint with prejudice against defendant State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts and Municipal Division (AOC) pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). The primary issue on appeal is whether plaintiff, a municipal court administrator, is an employee of the AOC, thereby allowing her to assert a claim against the AOC under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. Based on our review of the record and the applicable legal principles, we conclude plaintiff was employed by Vernon Township (Township), not the AOC, and, therefore, we affirm."...

Supreme Court to Take Up Two Published Appellate Division Opinions

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in two new appeals. One is before the Court on leave to appeal. The Court granted certification in the other matter....