September 28, 2018 Practice Points

Court Recognizes Broad Rule of Admissibility for Opinion Testimony

The Georgia Court of Appeals recognized a broad rule of admissibility for opinion testimony that is a potential boon to policyholders and significant risk to insurers in first party cases

by Nick Panayotopoulos and Alan Holcomb

In a unanimous decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court, New Jersey has joined the states adopting a heightened standard for the admissibility of expert testimony. In re: Accutane Litigation, No. A-25-2017-079958 (N.J. Sup. Ct. August 1, 2018), addressed the admissibility of expert testimony proffered by a 2,000-member class that alleged a causal connection between use of the drug Accutane and the incidence of the chronic bowel illness Crohn’s disease. The proposed expert testimony was in direct conflict with a number of epidemiological studies finding no causal relationship between Accutane use and the development of Crohn’s disease.

In its decision, the court addressed three issues: 1) whether the trial court properly excluded plaintiffs’ experts’ testimony; 2) whether the correct standard was applied; and 3) whether New Jersey’s standard for assessing the reliability of expert testimony required clarification.

Premium Content For:
  • Litigation Section
Join - Now