and recognition that if a claimant is unable to procure an expert willing to submit to the formality of an affidavit, then it would be fair to infer that the claimant would not be able to support his or her claim at trial. Moreover, submission of an unsworn and uncertified report offered in satisfaction of the statute would nullify the statute. Current court rules and rules in effect when the Legislature passed the statute require a plaintiff to submit an expert’s report to a defendant requesting it. R. 4:17-4(e). See In re Petition of Hall, supra, 147 N.J. at 392, 688 A.2d 81. It is a fair inference that the Legislature intended the statute to require more than mere compliance with R. 4:17 — 4(e). Cf. Palanque v. Lambert-Woolley, 327 N.J.Super. 158, 163, 742 A.2d 1002 (App.Div.2000) (<HOLDING>) In light of plaintiffs violation of the
holding if plaintiff does not serve report as to particular defendant trial court must dismiss that defendant from suit holding that an employees private arbitration agreement with her employer precluded her from filing suit against the employer under the adea holding expert report requirement fulfilled in claim against nurse by providing expert report of nurse as to standard of care and expert report of medical doctor as to causation holding that the fact that plaintiff had an expert report in her o possession before filing suit does not satisfy the statute holding that an expert that had provided consulting services to the defendant relating to the litigation was not precluded from serving as an expert for the plaintiff