Jonathan H. Lomurro, Esq. LL.M. - The Lawyer

Jonathan H. Lomurro, Esq. LL.M. has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey as a Certified Civil Trial Attorney.​ The process involves a peer review by practicing judges, attorney adversaries, and recommendations. Further, it requires a number of trial days, cases handled, and a written examination.

Jonathan H. Lomurro, Esq. LL.M. has been recognized by the American Board of Professional Liability Attorneys.​ The process involves a peer review by practicing judges, attorney adversaries, and recommendations. Further, it requires a number of trial days, cases handled, writing samples, and a written examination.

Mr. Lomurro was appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court to serve on the Supreme Court Civil Practice Committee. The committee is responsible for examining and making recommendations for amendments and additions to Parts I, II and IV of the Court Rules, non-rule changes and statutory amendments and new legislation related to court practice.

The National Law Journal selected Mr. Lomurro as a 2021 Trailblazer in Health Care for his work advocating for patient rights to their medical records. This recognition was not awarded for a price and was based on their selection criteria which can be found on their website at www.law.com Also, pursuant to New Jersey rules, it is noted that no aspect of this advertisement was approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Founded in 1958, ABOTA is a national association of experienced trial lawyers and judges. ABOTA and its members are dedicated to the preservation and promotion of the civil jury trial right provided by the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ABOTA membership consists of more than 7,600 lawyers—equally balanced between plaintiff and defense—and judges spread among 96 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. ABOTA is an invitation-only organization. Members must have at least five years of active experience as trial lawyers, have tried at least 10 civil jury trials to conclusion and possess additional litigation experience. Members must also exhibit the virtues of civility, integrity and professionalism by following our Code of Professionalism and Principles of Civility.

Mr. Lomurro was recognized by the New Jersey State Bar Associations's Medical Malpractice Committee with the 2019 William O. Barnes, Jr. Award for Excellence in Medical Malpractice Litigation. The award process requires the nominating committee to review individuals who are members of the New Jersey State Bar, have been in practice for over 10 years, demonstrate a substantial focus on the field of medical malpractice, demonstrate civility, integrity and professionalism, and have made a significant contribution to the practice of law in the field of medical malpractice. Next, the Special Committee votes on the approval of the recipient. Finally, the NJSBA Board of Trustees votes on the approval. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. It is issued by the New Jersey State Bar Association.

Jonathan successfully challenged the application of successive tortfeasor liability. This case holds that defendnats are responsibile for the damages that they cause to the injured plaintiff without obtaining a credit from defendants that settled the claims for the damages they caused.

Jonathan successfully acted as amicus attorney in the matter to protect the interests of injured plaintiffs through NJAJ. The Supreme Court determined that a medical facility does not require an affidavit of merit when the claim against the facility involves the actions of a non-licensed employee or agent.

Jonathan successfully acted as amicus attorney in the matter to protect the interests of injured plaintiffs through NJAJ. The Supreme Court reprimanded the actions of the defense counsel for his improper actions during trial. They also protected the rights for a plaintiff to use a life-care planner as a witness.

The Supreme Court held that where a patient removed the feeding tube herself, questions about the nurse's response required testimony from an expert. Therefore, it was not a common knowlege case. Common knowledge can be understood by a jury without the testimony of an expert. Since this was not a common knowledge case, Plaintiff's counsel was required to obtain an affidavit of merit stating the action deviated from the standard of care for nurses.

Jonathan fought to protect plaintiffs from being left alone to appear with the defense expert. Instead, it was argued that a recording device would provide evidence of the examination. The matter is pending review in the Supreme Court.

Jonathan worked as Amicus counsel for the New Jersey Association for Justice to protect the rights of the injured Plainitff who was tricked into losing their rights to proceed against the defendant due to confusion in comments between the parties and their counsell. The Appellate Division agreed with the exceptional circumstances and permitted the matter to proceed against Defendant.

Jonathan and his team helped overturn the archaic restrictions on plaintiff recovery from successive negligent defendants. It removed pro tanto and turned to pro rata. We argued that it was time to move on from the harsh common law application of credit the Appellate Division agreed.

Jonathan was honored to be involved in the amazing piece of reporting by Erika Frye. Her work on electronic medical records is ground breaking. Death by a thousand clicks was a masterful discussion on the issues with the present state of medical records. Jesse Rogala's video work in support of the publication was amazing and demonstrates the need for collaborative multimedia reporting.

Jonathan H. Lomurro, Esq. LL.M. has been appointed to serve as the chair of the Medical Malpractice Special Committee for the New Jersey State Bar Association. The purpose of the organization is to maintain the honor and dignity of the profession of the law to cultivate social relations among its members to suggest and urge reforms in the laws and to aid in the administration of justice. The Medical Malpractice Special Committee monitors case law and legislative developments in medical malpractice law and disseminates information to Association members.

Jonathan holds his LL.M. from Temple University Beasley School of law. An LL.M. is a Masters of Law degree which is obtained after one has achieved their J.D. (juris doctorate). Temple's trail advocacy program has been rated one of the top three trial advocacy programs in the United States for the past 20 years. The curriculum integrates the development of theory and theme, persuasive storytelling, extemporaneous speech and effective use of technology in the courtroom.

Jonathan Lomurro, a medical malpractice attorney in New Jersey, said his clients usually have to go to court to get their complete medical record. The information that health care providers fight most bitterly to keep from them, he said, are the audit logs — or the data that show every time a record has been accessed or edited, and by whom and when. That "metadata," he and other plaintiff attorneys argue, is critical for patients to understand the history of their care, particularly in cases where something has gone wrong.In an interview prior to Tuesday's hearing, Lomurro criticized the HHS proposal, saying it limits a patient's ability to obtain these logs. While the proposed rule requires the systems to share most data from a medical record with a patient, it excludes audit trails from that classification."While the proposal talks about the need of patient access … they then strip the greatest protections from the patient," said Lomurro. "I am at a loss on how this could ever be a beneficial change to the rules and help patients."

Tonya Hall is a pioneer in new media broadcasting. She host an interview show with ZDNet.com called The Tonya Hall Show. She interviewed Jonathan Lomurro regarding protected health data in the world of wearable health technology.

Mr. Lomurro has published several books on the practice of law. Further, he has authored numerous publications in peer-reviewed journals regarding the practice of law. Please click the icon above if you wish to learn more about his legal publications.

Mr. Lomurro is a member of the Phildelphia Bar Association and is licensed to practice in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Jonathan H. Lomurro, Esq. LL.M. has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey as a Certified Civil Trial Attorney.​ The process involves a peer review by practicing judges, attorney adversaries, and recommendations. Further, it requires a number of trial days, cases handled, and a written examination.

President (2013-2017) of Haydn Proctor Inn of Court. The American Inns of Court is an association of lawyers, judges, and other legal professionals from all levels and backgrounds who share a passion for professional excellence. Through regular meetings, members are able to build and strengthen professional relationships discuss fundamental concerns about professionalism and pressing legal issues of the day share experiences and advice exhort the utmost passion and dedication for the law provide mentoring opportunities and advance the highest levels of integrity, ethics, and civility.

Jonathan is on the leadership ladder for the New Jersey Association for Justice (NJAJ). NJAJ is dedicated to protecting New Jersey’s families by working to preserve and strengthen the laws for safer products and workplaces, a cleaner environment and quality health care. It is the organization that speaks for the injured and fights for the rights of the victims.

AV Preeminent® is a registered certification mark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings fall into two categories – legal ability and general practice standards.

Super Lawyer and Super Lawyer Rising Star Listings are not offered for a price. They are published by Thomson Reuters Co. Super Lawyer Rising Star recognition begins with peer nominations. Next, evaluations are combined with third-party research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey

The AVVO rating is calculated using a mathematical mode. The Avvo Rating cannot be bought. They calculate the rating based on public data they have collected on each attorney and the information the attorney has provided in their profile. The rating is continually reviewed and updated. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Mr. Lomurro served on the American Bar Association's House of Delegates as an At-Large representative for the State of New Jersey. The American Bar Association aims to serve equally our members, our profession and the public by defending liberty and delivering justice as the national representative of the legal profession.

Mr. Lomurro was interviewed along with Judge Herbert Dixon and Bjorn Christenson about their seminar presenation at ABA Techshow regarding technology and presentations at trial.

Mr. Lomurro serves on the ASTM committee E31 on Healthcare Informatics. He assisted in the creation and drafting of ASTM E2147-18's Standard Specification for Audit and Disclosure Logs for Use in Health Information Systems. ASTM Committee E31 on Healthcare Informatics develops standards related to the architecture, content, storage, security, confidentiality, functionality, and communication of information used within healthcare and healthcare decision making, including patient-specific information and knowledge. Established in 1970, E31 meets semi-annually as a committee in May and November.

Jonathan travels around the country presenting on different topics relating to the practice of law. He has spoken for many different bar associations, nursing associations, legal educational groups, and has lectured privately for different law firms. Please click the icon above if you wish to learn more about his presentations.

Jonathan was selected by the New Jersey State Bar Association YLD as the 2011 Young Lawyer of the Year.

Mr. Lomurro was awarded the 2009 professional achievement award by the New Jersey State Bar Association YLD

The New Jersey Law Journal awarded Mr. Lomurro the New Leaders of the Bar recognition in 2014.

Jonathan acted as amicus attorney in the matter to protect the interests of injured plaintiffs through NJAJ. The Court held that the enhanced requirements of section 41 governing the qualifications of persons permitted to submit an affidavit of merit, or to provide expert testimony against or in support of a physician, in a medical malpractice action apply only in medical malpractice actions. In all other actions against a licensed professional, including a dentist, section 27 prescribes the qualifications of the person who may submit an affidavit of merit against a licensed professional who is alleged to have acted negligently. The affiant must hold an appropriate license and must demonstrate particular expertise in the general area or specialty involved in the action, but he or she is not required to possess credentials equivalent to those of the licensed professional defendant. Neither the plain language nor the purpose and history of the AOM statute or Patients First Act support importation of the like-credential standard governing physicians in medical malpractice actions to professional negligence actions governed by section 27.

Jonathan acted as amicus attorney in the matter to protect the interests of injured plaintiffs through NJAJ. Defendant's deposition answers injected confusion in this case, perhaps in part by not qualifying his responses when plaintiff's counsel posed the question about the applicable specialty with singular phrasing. Defense counsel did not follow up at the deposition with a clarifying question. Moreover, the report of Dr. Perkel was obtained only about a month before the discovery period ended. Given these circumstances, it was held inequitable to not afford plaintiff an opportunity to obtain a substitute report from a family practice specialist with an appropriate opportunity for the defense to obtain a responsive report.

Remand was appropriate. A defendant may remove any civil action filed in state court to a federal district court having original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1446, which sets forth procedural requirements for removal, provides "[w]hen a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). This is known as the "rule of unanimity." The court agreed with Plaintiff and remanded to Essex County Court.

A municipal court or Superior Court judge must articulate the reasons for imposing a period of license suspension. Cf. R. 7:9-1(b) (requiring municipal court to state reasons for sentencing in disorderly-person- and petty-disorderly-person-offense cases) R. 3:21-4(g) (requiring judges to state reasons for imposing sentence in criminal cases). Requiring a statement of reasons for suspending a license pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:5-31, guided by the standards discussed above, will enhance appellate review and be a further safeguard against arbitrariness in sentencing.

Changed the law on invalid jury awards. The Court brings the use of remittitur and additur in line with basic notions of fair play and equity. When a damages award is deemed a miscarriage of justice requiring the grant of a new trial, then the acceptance of a damages award fixed by the judge must be based on the mutual consent of the parties. Going forward, in those rare instances when a trial judge determines that a damages award is either so grossly excessive or grossly inadequate that the grant of a new damages trial is justified, the judge has the option of setting a remittitur or an additur at an amount that a reasonable jury would award given the evidence in the case. Setting the figure at an amount a reasonable jury would award -- an amount that favors neither side -- is intended to give the competing parties the greatest incentive to reach agreement. If both parties accept the remittitur or additur, then the case is settled if not, a new trial on damages must proceed before a jury.