Verdicchio v. Ricca

843 A.2d 1042, 179 N.J. 1 (2004)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Verdicchio v. Ricca

New Jersey Supreme Court
843 A.2d 1042, 179 N.J. 1 (2004)

Facts

Beginning in May 1993, 17-year-old Stephen Verdicchio visited his primary-care physician, Dr. Anthony Ricca (defendant), multiple times over the course of 13 months with complaints of bowel problems, lethargy, and pain in his left leg. In January 1994, Stephen saw Ricca again, having lost 17 pounds in five months and complaining of the same symptoms, including leg pain. Although Ricca was responsive to Stephen’s gastroenterological complaints, which persisted, Ricca did not examine Stephen’s leg, dismissing his pain because he ran track. Even when Stephen returned in May 1994 after having collapsed while participating in a track meet, Ricca noted that Stephen’s left leg was tender and had muscle edema, but he did not X-ray the leg. By July 1994, Stephen returned to Ricca in great pain, and his left leg was swollen, firm, and felt abnormal. Stephen’s mother, Kathleen Verdicchio (plaintiff), insisted that Ricca provide a referral to an orthopedist. The orthopedist ordered a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which showed that Stephen had a mass in his leg. Further tests and scans showed that Stephen had a cancerous tumor in his left leg, and the cancer had already spread to his lungs and his abdomen. Stephen began receiving treatment for metastatic cancer at that point, but by May 1995, he died. Kathleen and Stephen’s father, Vincent Verdicchio (plaintiff), sued Ricca for wrongful death. A jury ruled in the Verdicchios’ favor, determining that Ricca was negligent in treating Stephen, which increased Stephen’s risk of a terrible result, and this elevated risk was a substantial factor in causing the harm Stephen suffered. However, the trial judge granted Ricca’s motion to set aside the jury’s verdict, and an appellate court affirmed because the Verdicchios had not shown that Stephen’s cancer had not metastasized in January 1994, when Ricca allegedly deviated from the standard of care and failed to examine Stephen’s leg and diagnose his disease. However, it was also acknowledged that there was no way to know when the cancer metastasized to Stephen’s lungs, but Stephen’s tumor likely developed in fall 1993. If Stephen’s cancer had not metastasized as of January 1994, with treatment, there was an 85 percent chance of survival at five years. If the cancer had already spread by May 1994, with diagnosis and treatment at that time, Stephen had a 20-30 percent chance of being alive five years later.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Long, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 802,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership