The New Jersey Supreme Court is currently considering the scope of the Charitable Immunity Act and its application to hospitals and medical facilities offering charity services. At issue in the case is the applicability of two statutes under the Charitable Immunity Act: N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 and -8. Under Section 7, nonprofit entities organized exclusively for religious, charitable, educational, or hospital purposes cannot be held liable for negligence where the person injured is a beneficiary of these services. Under Section 8, nonprofit entities organized exclusively for hospital purposes are limited to $250,000 in liability for persons injured by negligence.

The matter presently before the NJ Supreme Court is Kuchera v. Jersey Shore Family Health Center. Jersey Shore Family Health Center is organized under Meridian Hospitals Corporation. Both entities are 501(c)(3) nonprofit entities organized for charitable, education, and health services. In this case, the Plaintiff came to the Family Health Center to attend a free eye clinic organized by the NJ Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired and the Family Health Center. While in the building, Plaintiff slipped on an oily substance and was injured. She then sued the Family Health Center, who responded that it was immune from liability under Section 7 because it was providing charity care and Plaintiff was a recipient of the care.

Family Health Center moved for summary judgment to dismiss the case. The trial court agreed that Family Health Center was immune because it was not operating exclusively as a hospital by providing charity care. Instead, it was operating under the “mixed” purposes of Section 7. Plaintiff appealed. The appellate panel agreed that the primary issue was whether Family Health Center was operating under the mixed purposes of charity, education, and health of Section 7 or was exclusively a hospital under Section 8. All agreed that the Family Health Center and the hospital were nonprofit entities organized for charitable, educational, and health purposes. However, more importantly, the panel determined that, on the date Plaintiff fell, the Family Health Center was operating under the mixed purposes paradigm of Section 7. The court observed that the clinic was free, was staffed by volunteers, and invited the community to attend. Further, the hospital was additionally serving its overall purposes as a teaching hospital providing healthcare. To the court, these mixed purposes and the fact that Plaintiff was a beneficiary of the charitable care necessitated Section 7 protections.

Plaintiff then appealed the matter to the NJ Supreme Court, which heard oral argument December 2, 2014. Based on the questions posed during argument, the primary issues again appear to be whether the entity in question organized for mixed purposes and what circumstances would trigger a finding of mixed circumstances. Additionally, the justices asked questions that suggest concerns as to the purposes of the immunity provisions and the grounds for distinguishing between medical care and charitable services.

To be sure, the decision in this matter is of great importance to health care entities providing charitable care. Our office will be monitoring this case and any related developments. A decision is likely during the spring of 2015. We will provide our analysis after the decision is published.