Key Takeaway
Court reminds attorneys that expert opinions must address specific assertions with cited evidence, not just conclusory statements, in personal injury litigation.
Expert testimony forms the backbone of many personal injury cases, particularly when complex medical or technical issues need explanation for judges and juries. However, not all expert opinions carry equal weight in court. New York courts have established clear standards for what constitutes admissible expert testimony versus what amounts to inadmissible speculation.
The fundamental requirement is that expert opinions must be substantive and well-reasoned, addressing specific points raised by opposing experts rather than making broad, unsupported statements. This standard becomes particularly crucial during motion practice, where attorneys seek to exclude opposing expert testimony or defend their own experts from challenges.
Courts regularly scrutinize whether experts have provided proper foundation for their opinions and whether they’ve followed procedural requirements for expert disclosure. The failure to meet these standards can result in exclusion of critical testimony, potentially devastating a case’s prospects.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Attia v Klebanov, 2021 NY Slip Op 01241 (2d Dpet. 2021)
“Expert opinions, in order not to be considered speculative or conclusory, should address specific assertions made by the movant’s experts, setting forth an explanation of the reasoning and relying on “specifically cited evidence in the record” (Roca v Perel, 51 AD3d 757, 759).”
This is such a basic statement of the law, and I fret it is often forgotten.
Key Takeaway
Expert opinions must be more than conclusory statements. They require specific responses to opposing expert assertions, detailed reasoning, and citations to record evidence. This fundamental principle, while basic, is frequently overlooked in practice, leading to exclusion of expert testimony that could otherwise be persuasive. Attorneys must ensure their experts provide substantive, well-supported opinions that directly engage with the issues at hand.
Related Articles
- Understanding foundation requirements for medical malpractice expert testimony
- Expert witness qualifications in New York medical malpractice cases
- Expert competency and medical literature in New York cases
- Article 10 evidentiary issues regarding expert witness testimony and hearsay rules
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
