the verdict on other grounds. The Appellate Division reversed the entry of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and affirmed the holding that the Good Samaritan Act did not exculpate Dr. Ranzini. The Supreme Court granted Dr. Ranzini’s petition for certification and affirmed. The question in Velazquez was whether the statute immunizes a physician who assists a patient during a medical emergency in the hospital. Justice Long traced the Good Samaritan Doctrine to its origin in a New Testament parable.426 The Velazquez Court noted that all 50 states have enacted some form of Good Samaritan legislation, and that there are many variations of statutes, some of which explicitly immunize conduct which takes place in a hospital and others which do not, including New Jersey’s Good Samaritan statute. After reviewing numerous law review discussions of the statute, the Court concluded that New Jersey’s Good Samaritan statute does not immunize conduct which occurs in the hospital. The Court explained that the purpose of the statute, “to encourage the rendering of medical care to those who would not otherwise receive it, by physicians who come 425. Velazquez v. Jiminez. 172 N.J. 240 (2002). 426. See Luke 10:30-37 (King James). upon such patients by chance, without the benefit of the expertise, assistance, equipment, or sanitation that is available in a hospital or medical setting,” is best satisfied by its exclusion of in-hospital negligence.427 The Court also rejected Dr. Ranzini’s contention that not extending Good Samaritan immunity to a hospital setting “will encourage physicians to simply stand by and allow patients to suffer or die.”428 The Court would not “impute such conduct to the highly respected medical profession.”429 The New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act,430 grants an immunity to health care professionals in certain “Good Samaritan” situations. N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-1.3, amends New Jersey’s Good Samaritan Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-1, et seq., and immunizes a health care professional who responds in a hospital or similar setting to a life-threatening emergency or a request for emergency assistance in a life-threatening emergency within a hospital or other health care facility, unless there was
the verdict on other grounds. The Appellate Division reversed the entry of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and affirmed the holding that the Good Samaritan Act did not exculpate Dr. Ranzini. The Supreme Court granted Dr. Ranzini’s petition for certification and affirmed. The question in Velazquez was whether the statute immunizes a physician who assists a patient during a medical emergency in the hospital. Justice Long traced the Good Samaritan Doctrine to its origin in a New Testament parable.426 The Velazquez Court noted that all 50 states have enacted some form of Good Samaritan legislation, and that there are many variations of statutes, some of which explicitly immunize conduct which takes place in a hospital and others which do not, including New Jersey’s Good Samaritan statute. After reviewing numerous law review discussions of the statute, the Court concluded that New Jersey’s Good Samaritan statute does not immunize conduct which occurs in the hospital. The Court explained that the purpose of the statute, “to encourage the rendering of medical care to those who would not otherwise receive it, by physicians who come 425. Velazquez v. Jiminez. 172 N.J. 240 (2002). 426. See Luke 10:30-37 (King James). upon such patients by chance, without the benefit of the expertise, assistance, equipment, or sanitation that is available in a hospital or medical setting,” is best satisfied by its exclusion of in-hospital negligence.427 The Court also rejected Dr. Ranzini’s contention that not extending Good Samaritan immunity to a hospital setting “will encourage physicians to simply stand by and allow patients to suffer or die.”428 The Court would not “impute such conduct to the highly respected medical profession.”429 The New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act,430 grants an immunity to health care professionals in certain “Good Samaritan” situations. N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-1.3, amends New Jersey’s Good Samaritan Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-1, et seq., and immunizes a health care professional who responds in a hospital or similar setting to a life-threatening emergency or a request for emergency assistance in a life-threatening emergency within a hospital or other health care facility, unless there was