Mancuso v. Neckles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A reasonable person in plaintiff's position should have been aware that her expert's opinion was not necessarily the last word on the subject of who might have done her wrong. In 1992, plaintiff knew of her injury, the increase in the cancer caused by a delayed diagnosis, and she knew that it had been possibly caused by the negligence of another. A reasonable person would have appreciated that the universe of possible others included any of the radiologists who had read the mammograms. Dr. Beinart was clearly within that universe. Although plaintiff did not know him by name, she had his reports and mammograms, and she could have as easily identified him by name in 1992 or 1993 as she did in 1997. [ Mancuso, supra, 316 N.J.Super. at 134-35 , 719 A. 2d 716 .]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 318 N.J. Super. 485 - Gallagher v. Burdette-Tomlin Med. Hosp. · Mancuso v. Neckles Ex Rel. Neckles

2. “On two occasions, the first in 1988 and the second in 1989, Pia Mancuso, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, had mammography (radiological studies of the breast) performed at the Montclair Imaging Center. Dr. Beinart, a radiologist, interpreted the films and prepared and signed mammogram reports for plaintiff's physician. In each instance, Dr. Beinart noted the existence of a cyst as a possible abnormality of the right breast and described the cyst as "most likely benign." In the first report, he recommended a follow-up mammogram in six months, and in the second report he recommended another mammography in a year. He had no further involvement with plaintiff. In June 1991, plaintiff entered Holy Name Hospital for a hysterectomy, which included a mammogram as part of the preoperative work-up. Plaintiff arranged for her 1988 and 1989 mammogram films to be sent to the hospital as a baseline. A radiologist found ovoid densities in the right breast and recommended to plaintiff's surgeon, Spero Neckles, that she undergo a follow-up mammogram in four months. Plaintiff contends that Dr. Neckles failed to advise her of either the abnormal findings or the recommendation for a follow-up in four months. These allegedly abnormal findings and the failure to provide plaintiff with appropriate advice in relation to them formed the initial basis for this civil action. On July 8, 1992, plaintiff underwent another mammography. The report indicated the cyst identified in the 1988 and 1989 film”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 318 N.J. Super. 485 - Gallagher v. Burdette-Tomlin Med. Hosp.

3. “... [P]laintiff's counsel submitted all of plaintiff's mammograms to a radiologist. On June 24, 1994, the radiologist, Stephen V. LoCurcio, M.D., reported that in his opinion there had been malpractice in 1991, not with respect to the reading of the mammogram by that radiologist, but because of the failure of the surgeon to recommend follow-up studies in a timely fashion. However, with respect to Dr. Beinart's interpretations of the 1988 and 1989 mammographies, LoCurcio said, "I agree with ... the ... interpretations and reports.... I would have reached the same conclusion and [rendered] similar reports as [the] Radiologist!"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 318 N.J. Super. 485 - Gallagher v. Burdette-Tomlin Med. Hosp.