Key Takeaway
New York courts clarify when medical experts can testify outside their specialty area and the foundation required for reliable expert testimony in personal injury cases.
In personal injury litigation, expert testimony often makes or breaks a case. Medical professionals frequently serve as expert witnesses, but questions arise about whether a physician can offer opinions outside their area of specialization. New York courts have established clear guidelines about when such testimony is permissible and what foundation must be laid to ensure the opinion carries probative value.
The Second Department’s recent decision in DiLorenzo v Zaso provides important clarification on this issue, building upon established precedent regarding expert testimony requirements. This ruling has significant implications for both plaintiffs and defendants in medical malpractice and personal injury cases, particularly when dealing with complex medical issues that may span multiple specialties.
Understanding these requirements is crucial for attorneys preparing expert witnesses, as failing to establish proper foundation can result in exclusion of critical testimony or render an expert’s opinion worthless in the eyes of the court.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
DiLorenzo v Zaso, 2017 NY Slip Op 02402 (2d Dept. 2017)
” medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field” (Behar v Cohen, 21 AD3d 1045, 1046-1047 ). However, the witness must “be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable” (id. at 1047 ). “Thus, where a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” (id.). Where no such foundation is laid, the expert’s opinion is “of no probative value” (Feuer v Ng, 136 AD3d at 707; see Tsimbler v Fell, 123 AD3d 1009, 1009-1010; Shashi v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 104 AD3d at 839; Geffner v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 57 AD3d at 842; Mustello v Berg, 44 AD3d 1018, 1018-1019).”
Key Takeaway
While medical experts don’t need to be specialists in every field they testify about, courts require a proper foundation demonstrating their qualifications and reliability when venturing outside their specialty. Without this foundation, even a qualified physician’s opinion becomes legally worthless, potentially devastating a party’s case. This principle applies equally to various types of expert testimony beyond traditional medical specialties.
