Treating physician is often in better position to opine on causal relationship than an expert who examines patient in order to give expert testimony.

The Judge of Compensation denied the petitioner’s motion for a total knee replacement based upon the testimony of Dr. DiVerniero, whom he found to be more specialized, more credible and more persuasive than the proofs offered by the petitioner. The judge found that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof in establishing that her total knee replacement was necessitated by her work incident.

In her appeal, the petitioner argued, in relevant part, that Dr. DiVerniero’s testimony was not competent and, as such, the Judge of Compensation erred by relying upon it. In affirming the judge’s ruling, the Appellate Division found that the judge considered Dr. Cataldo’s contrary opinion, but found Dr. DiVerniero’s opinion on causation to be more credible and persuasive. The judge noted that Dr. DiVerniero had been personally involved in the petitioner’s post-accident care. The Appellate Division referenced a prior decision where it held that a treating physician is often in a better position to express opinions as to causal relationship than an expert who is merely examining the patient in order to give expert testimony. See Bird v. Somerset Hills Country Club, 309 N.J. Super. 517, 522-23 (App. Div.). 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4^th Quarter, October 2018}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2018 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}