In James v. Ruiz, 440 N.J. Super. 45 (App. Div. 2015), discussed here, Judge Sabatino, who (in addition to his judicial duties) teaches evidence law at Rutgers-Camden Law School, addressed the admissibility of the opinions of non-testifying treating physicians contained in the plaintiff’s medical records. In response to that opinion, the Supreme Court announced today that its Committee on Model Civil Jury Charges had amended Model Civil Jury Charge 1.13, regarding expert testimony, to add an “Optional Charge Concerning Experts Relying on Hearsay Statements of Non-Testifying Experts.” The amended charge is available here.
James v. Ruiz Leads to an Amended Model Civil Jury Charge
