ALLEN DAVIS v. LARST PEDERSEN et al.
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0669-05T30669-05T3
ALLEN DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LARST PEDERSEN and
MARLENE PEDERSEN,
Defendants-Respondents.
_________________________________
Submitted May 3, 2006 - Decided June 5, 2006
Before Judges Stern and Alley.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Monmouth County, SC-3199-05.
Allen Davis, appellant, submitted a brief pro se.
Lars Pedersen and Marlene Pedersen, respondents, submitted a brief pro se.
PER CURIAM
Doctor Allen Davis, plaintiff, brings this action pro se against his patients, defendants Larst Pedersen and Marlene Pedersen. His contentions are made through the testimony of Carolee Brodie, plaintiff's current office manager. Brodie testified that there were discrepancies in patients' accounts due to the mistakes of plaintiff's previous office manager. Consequently, Brodie examined the records from 2002 through the time of her testimony in September 2005, to determine the amount of the billing errors for each of plaintiff's patients.
Defendant Marlene Pedersen also testified. Mrs. Pedersen testified that plaintiff contended she and her husband owed him $419 for services rendered. She stated that they paid $93 but plaintiff was demanding the remaining $325.80.
Based upon the proceedings before the trial court, judgment was appropriately entered in favor of defendants. The court found that the law of estoppel applied because it was too late to correct a bookkeeping mistake. The judge explained that a business may correct a billing error in a subsequent statement, but cannot seek to correct a bookkeeping error dating back three years. Accordingly, the judge entered a verdict of no cause for plaintiff. The factual record was concise, and there is no basis on which we can interfere with the judgment for defendants. See R. 2:10-2; R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A); Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-0669-05T3
June 5, 2006
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.