grief over the loss of her baby as to her observation of the baby and her knowledge that the doctor had failed to diagnose the cause of death. [Ibid] The Court did recognize in Frame the possibility of a successful indirect claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of the medical misdiagnosis of a family member: “In an appropriate ease, if a family member witnesses the physician’s malpractice, observes the effect of the malpractice on the patient, and immediately connects the malpractice with the injury, that may be sufficient to allow recovery for the family member’s emotional distress.” Id. at 649, 560 A.2d 675. Here, neither Mr. nor Mrs. Gendek observed any act of malpractice. Cf. Polikoff v. Catabro, 209 N.J.Super. 110, 506 A.2d 1285 (App.Div.1986) (<HOLDING>). Mrs. Gendek witnessed only the non-negligent
holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress recognizing validity of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress recognizing indirect claim for infliction of emotional distress of mother who observed hyperalimentation of fluids through catheter in daughters jugular vein followed by daughters death holding that claim for emotional distress arising out of daughters relatively minor injuries did not exceed 50000 for purposes of amount in controversy