Exclusion of petitioner’s medical expert’s testimony as an inadmissible “net opinion” upheld.

The petitioner’s expert in orthopedics testified that he had no specific knowledge of the work that the petitioner performed as a dental hygienist, had not read any literature regarding the work, and had not viewed a surveillance video of the petitioner shopping, carrying packages, lifting large plants with her hands and gardening without much difficulty. The Judge found that the petitioner’s expert’s testimony was a “net opinion” based on very little knowledge of the petitioner’s occupation or alleged injuries. Pursuant to N.J.R.E. 703, the so-called “net opinion” rule, an expert’s opinion must be based on “facts, data, or another expert’s opinion, either perceived or made known to the expert, at or before trial.” Accordingly, the Judge concluded that she could give no weight to the petitioner’s expert’s opinion and that it was inadmissible.

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2014