its malpractice claims against Olivo and W & 0. VII. Finally, because our holding results in Mortgage Grader having no claim against Ward, the affidavit of merit issue does not control the outcome of this matter. However, for guidance we provide the following comments. “[W]hen asserting a claim against a professional covered by the affidavit of merit statute ... a claimant should determine if the underlying factual allegations of the claim require proof of a deviation from the professional standard of care for that specific profession.” Couri v. Gardner, 173 N.J. 328, 341, 801 A.2d 1134 (2002). “If such proof is required, an affidavit of merit shall be mandatory for that claim, unless [an exception applies].” Ibid.; see also Hubbard v. Reed, 168 N.J. 387, 390, 774 A.2d 495 (2001) (<HOLDING>). A claim of vicarious liability requires proof
recognizing common knowledge exception holding that affidavit of merit is not required in common knowledge cases holding that the affidavit in question did not satisfy the burden of the party moving for summary judgment where affiants eonclusory statement failed to indicate personal knowledge of the circumstances in question and personal knowledge could not be reasonably inferred from the contents of the affidavit holding that physician testifying as to personal knowledge of medical treatment was not required to attach medical chart to affidavit in order to verify the affidavit testimony recognizing a common knowledge exception