Timothy M. Crammer

Timothy M. Crammer joined Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski in 2023.

A partner of the firm, Timothy M. Crammer represents physicians and other healthcare providers. As well as governmental entities in malpractice, general liability, disciplinary, and licensing matters, and has tried over 150 cases throughout New Jersey for more than 40 years.

Prior to joining Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski, Mr. Crammer was the senior partner and litigator at Crammer, Bishop & Crammer, where he is specializing in the defense of malpractice and general liability lawsuits on behalf of physicians, nurses, other health care professionals, hospitals, and governmental entities. Mr. Crammer has been a speaker and lecturer on topics related to medical malpractice and trial advocacy, including presentations to the Vincent Hanneman Inns of Court on its “Civil Trial Master Class” and “Mock Trial” programs, to the NJSBA program on “Hot Tips for Civil Litigators,” and to various NJICLE seminars.

Mr. Crammer received his BS degree in political science and economics in 1977 from American University, Washington, DC, and his juris doctor degree in 1981 from the University of Miami School of Law, Miami, FL. He is admitted to practice in all state and federal courts in New Jersey, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.

Significant Appeals Include

In Re Petition of Hall, 147 N.J. 379 (1997); Velazquez v. Portadin, 163 NJ 677 (2000); Bentley v. Atlantic County, 382 Fed.Appx. 205 (3d Cir. 2010); Gonteski v. Emerg. Phys. Assoc (App. Div. 2011 – unreported opinion); Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463 (2013)

Representative Examples

• Represented a neurosurgeon in a complicated medical malpractice case involving a claimed failure to diagnose and treat cervical spinal cord compression following an automobile accident that resulted in incomplete quadriplegia. The case involved novel issues of successor tortfeasor liability. Plaintiff utilized experts who stated that our client should have performed an immediate MRI of the cervical spine, citing supportive literature. Our experts and client, citing competing literature, argued that an immediate MRI was not warranted and would not have altered the plaintiff’s ultimate outcome. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found by a vote of 7-1 that our client was not negligent.

• Represented an anesthesiologist in a multi-defendant obstetrical malpractice case. The plaintiff alleged that our client improperly administered local anesthesia prior to a c-section, resulting in severe conscious pain during the procedure. Our client testified that he performed appropriate tests that determined the patient was sufficiently anesthetized. The patient and a family member disputed that testimony. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found by a vote of 6-0 that our client was not negligent.

• Represented an internal medicine physician in a multi-defendant malpractice case. The plaintiff was diagnosed in the ER with a myocardial infarction and admitted to the care of our client. The plaintiff’s estate claimed that a stat CT of the chest was required to rule out an impending dissecting aneurysm, which the patient ultimately experienced. Our client testified that the aneurysm did not occur until after he first saw the patient, and that when the patient experienced symptoms of a dissection he did order a stat CT. There were prominent competing experts on both sides of the case. At the conclusion of the trial the jury found unanimously that our client was not negligent.