In this medical malpractice case arising out of a spinal surgery, the motion judge excluded the opinions of plaintiff's liability expert, a board-certified anesthesiologist and pain management specialist, on issues of medical causation. The judge barred the expert from opining on causation issues for two reasons.
First, at his discovery deposition, the expert agreed with defense counsel's question that he would "defer to a neurologist" on whether the surgery caused plaintiff to experience symptoms of pain in his leg and foot. The judge treated that deposition answer as a concession by the expert that he is unqualified to opine on the causation issues in this case.
Second, aside from the expert's supposed concession that he lacked suitable credentials, the judge barred his testimony about causation because his expert report conveyed inadmissible net opinions on the subject.
Having excluded the anesthesiologist on these grounds, the judge denied plaintiff's request to extend discovery and enable him to present a neurologist as a substitute causation expert. The judge therefore granted defendant summary judgment. Plaintiff now appeals.
Upon considering the divergent outcomes in cases from other jurisdictions, the court rules on the evidentiary issue as a matter of first impression under New Jersey law.
The court declines to adopt a per se rule that would treat a testifying expert's acknowledgment to "defer" to another expert who has a different or overlapping specialty as a categorical admission that the testifying expert lacks the qualifications to render opinions about the subject. Instead, the context of the "deferral" must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Here, the record is unclear about what the expert meant by his adoption of the term "defer" when opposing counsel questioned him at his deposition. Hence, this court declines to rely on that basis to bar the expert’s causation opinions.
Regardless of the "deferral" issue, the motion judge reasonably found that plaintiff's expert's conclusions about causation did not comport with the net opinion doctrine. The court therefore sustains the motion judge on that basis alone and affirms summary judgment.