Tag Archives: Experts

To Call (Two) or Not To Call (Any) Experts: That Is No Longer a Question

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently handed down two decisions that give trial lawyers greater freedom to try their cases when it comes to the selection and presentation of expert testimony. In McLean v. Liberty Health System, A-1793-11, a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff retained two emergency room medical experts to opine that the plaintiff’s ER treatment deviated from the standard of care. The trial court granted the defense counsel’s unwritten and off-the-record request that each side be limited to one expert per specialty.…

Continue Reading....

No Ongoing Duty to Advise Opponent of Intentions Regarding Expert Testimony at Trial

Tactical decisions involving whether to present expert testimony are often made up to the eve of, and sometimes even during, trial.  In a recent unpublished decision that should be comforting to trial attoneys across New Jersey in all manner of cases, our Appellate Division ruled this week that defense counsel “did not violate any duty of candor to the tribunal and his adversary by not disclosing his trial tactics on an ongoing basis.” A copy of the panel’s decision in Fields v. Hackensack University Medical

Continue Reading....

Necessarily Unhelpful: If Expert Opinion Is ‘Unnecessary’ for the Plaintiff to Prove a Warning Case, Can the Defendant Seek to Exclude It as ‘Unhelpful?’

A recent trial court opinion granting a defendant’s motion to strike an expert’s “net opinion” on the sufficiency of a warning, but then denying summary judgment on the grounds that expert testimony is not necessary in an otherwise straightforward failure-to-warn case, raises an interesting question: If expert testimony is not necessary to prove a failure-to-warn claim in the first instance, then shouldn’t defendants be moving to strike the expert testimony more often on the grounds that such testimony is “unhelpful” to the jury? Vazquez v.

Continue Reading....