Source: https://coughlinduffy.com/news-events/new-jersey-supreme-court-embraces-use-of-daubert-factors-to-determine-admissibility-of-expert-opinion
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:38:49+00:00

Document:
At issue in In re: Accutane Litigation (A-25-17)(079958) was the admissibility of Plaintiffs’ expert reports linking the drug Accutane to Chron’s disease. A pre-trial Kemp hearing was held by the trial court to determine admissibility of the opinions. After the hearing, the trial court concluded that Plaintiffs’ experts violated scientific protocol by relying on case reports and animal studies while ignoring epidemiology studies and, thus, barred their opinions. Without general causation experts, Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed. Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s decision to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s ruling and, instead, held that Plaintiffs’ experts used sound scientific methodology and that the matter should be presented to a jury. Thereafter, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted Certification. The issues considered by our Supreme Court were: (1) whether the Appellate Division employed the correct standard in reviewing and overturning the trial court’s decision; and (2) whether the Daubert standard’s factors can inform a New Jersey trial court’s determination for assessing the reliability of an expert’s testimony.
First, our Supreme Court reaffirmed that an abuse of discretion standard must be applied by an appellate court when determining whether a trial court has properly admitted or excluded expert scientific testimony in a civil case.
Because our Supreme Court’s opinion does not mandate the use of the Daubert factors, but only states that they “should” be incorporated for use by our trial courts as a “helpful—but not necessary or definitive guide,” it remains to be seen to what extent the trial courts will be receptive to applying the Daubert factors in state court litigation. However, this decision does signal an important shift away from the very liberal and admittedly controversial methodology-based standard of Rubanick. For pharmaceutical and products liability defendants and their attorneys, this is a very positive development.
 Kemp ex. Rel. Wright v. State, 174 N.J. 412, 427 (2002).
 Rubanick v. Witco Chemical Corp., 125 N.J. 421 (1991).
 Landrigan v. Celotex Corp., 127 N.J. 404 (1992).
 The Daubert trilogy includes: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.