## Facts

- Erin Rosenblit received chiropractic treatment from Dr. John F. Zimmerman, Jr. in 1992 for mid-back pain, including neck manipulation.
- After several visits, Rosenblit developed new symptoms (neck pain, headaches, nausea, and ringing in her ears) that she attributed to the treatment.
- In 1994, a physician diagnosed C1–C2 instability; Rosenblit later underwent cervical fusion surgery in 1995.
- Rosenblit sued Zimmerman and his clinic for malpractice and obtained a copy of her original medical chart before filing suit.
- In discovery, Zimmerman produced a different version of Rosenblit’s chart, asserted it was a recopied “more complete” record, and stated the original had been destroyed.
- Rosenblit amended her complaint to add claims based on alteration/destruction of evidence, including fraudulent concealment.

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey should recognize an independent tort for spoliation of evidence.
2. Whether a plaintiff may maintain an independent tort claim for fraudulent concealment of evidence when the spoliation is discovered during the underlying litigation and the original evidence is ultimately obtained.
3. What remedies are available in the underlying action when a party intentionally alters or destroys relevant evidence, including the use of adverse-inference instructions and the admissibility of spoliation evidence.
4. Whether punitive damages are available for fraudulent concealment based on deliberate alteration and destruction of medical records in anticipation of litigation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey declined to recognize a free-standing tort of spoliation of evidence.
- The Court recognized and applied an independent tort of fraudulent concealment of evidence for intentional destruction or concealment of relevant evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.
- The Court held that, when spoliation is discovered during litigation, the trial court may employ remedial measures in the underlying case (including an adverse-inference instruction) and the plaintiff may also pursue a separate fraudulent-concealment claim.
- The Court affirmed the availability of punitive damages for egregious fraudulent concealment, approving remittitur that reduced the punitive award to $150,000.

## Legal Principles

- New Jersey does not recognize a general, independent tort of spoliation of evidence; spoliation is addressed through sanctions, evidentiary remedies (including adverse inferences), and—when intentional misconduct is proven—the tort of fraudulent concealment of evidence.
- Fraudulent concealment of evidence requires intentional concealment, destruction, or alteration of evidence known to be relevant to existing or reasonably anticipated litigation, undertaken to disrupt the adversary’s case, and causing damage (including consequential harms such as added costs, delay, or impairment).
- A plaintiff need not prove that spoliation caused loss of the underlying case to recover for fraudulent concealment; recovery may be based on consequential injury even if the original evidence is later found.
- Evidence of spoliation may be admissible in the underlying action and may support an adverse inference when relevant and not unfairly prejudicial under ordinary evidentiary standards.
- Punitive damages may be awarded for fraudulent concealment when the defendant’s conduct is especially reprehensible and the amount is proportionate to the harm and consistent with governing punitive-damages constraints.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a stand-alone spoliation tort but established fraudulent concealment as an independent cause of action for intentional evidence destruction or alteration connected to litigation, while confirming that trial courts may also use adverse-inference and related remedies in the underlying case and may award punitive damages for particularly egregious concealment.


Rosenblit v. Zimmerman, 766 A.2d 749 (N.J. 2001)