On appeal, plaintiffs contended the trial court committed error by finding plaintiff’s expert not qualified to testify; barring plaintiff’s expert testimony as a net opinion…medicalmalpracticelawyers, New Jersey Appellate Court Revives Medical Malpractice Wrongful Death Case Involving 3-Week-Old
The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division stated in its August 7, 2025 Per Curiam: “Dr. Tunik’s substantial academic credentials, professional certifications, teaching roles, and decades of clinical and research experience in pediatric emergency medicine establish a sufficient foundation for his expert testimony regarding medical causation on this record … Defendants are entitled to argue what they will surely describe as deficits in Dr. Tunik’s qualifications regarding the field of pathology. However, such vulnerability may be properly explored on cross-examination, and it goes to the weight rather than the admissibility of his opinions.”
“While Dr. Tunik may not be specialized in pathology or autopsy procedures, he does not have to be. His extensive qualifications demonstrate that he does specialize in what to do when an infant child, less than one-month old, presents in an emergency room with potentially life-threatening symptoms. We take a liberal approach when assessing a person’s qualification to testify as an expert, id. at 454, and we note that plaintiffs do not offer Dr. Tunik to opine on a standard of care for pathologists, but on the diagnostic failures of emergency room medical personnel, and the consequences which flowed from them. Based on Dr. Tunik’s extensive education and experience, we depart from the trial court’s analysis and conclude Dr. Tunik is qualified to offer an opinion to a degree of reasonable medical probability regarding the proximate cause of S.E.C.’s death.”
The New Jersey appellate court stated: “An expert’s opinion that fails to address facts in the record that directly contradict the expert’s conclusions should be barred as a net opinion … Dr. Tunik’s opinion does not constitute a net opinion and satisfies the N.J.R.E. 703 requirements. Dr. Tunik’s conclusions are grounded in the record, which included his review of all medical records, the autopsy report, witness testimony, and a video presented by plaintiffs.
Dr. Tunik identified detailed factual support for his opinions, including: S.E.C.’s presenting symptoms of vomiting, fever, and distress; the documented clinical findings; and his analysis of what additional diagnostic testing may have revealed had it been performed. Dr. Tunik’s opinion addresses the central issue of causation by explaining how defendants’ failure to perform additional diagnostic testing and provide appropriate treatment more likely than not resulted in the infant’s death … We express no opinion as to what weight a jury may assign Dr. Tunik’s opinion on causation. We simply conclude that his opinion is sufficiently grounded in facts and clearly articulated methodology. It does not constitute an inadmissible net opinion under N.J.R.E. 703.”