The Appellate Division emphasized in an unreported decision the standard of methodology-based testimony that experts must demonstrate in order to be deemed reliable and admissible into evidence. In Dorrell v. Woodruff Energy, 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 397, the Appellate Division reiterated that a party advancing expert testimony must show that the proffered witness has applied a “scientifically recognized methodology in the way that others in the field practice the methodology.”

Before the trial court, the plaintiffs called their expert witness, a licensed site remediation professional (LSRP), to testify as to petroleum contamination allegedly caused by the defendants. Ultimately, the trial court found there was sufficient evidence of gasoline contamination attributable to Defendant-Appellant, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded to the trial court to conduct a N.J.R.E. 104 hearing, which would determine the admissibility of the LSRP’s opinions based on both his qualifications as an expert and the reliability of his methodology. 

After the two-day 104 hearing, the court determined that, at the time of trial, the LSRP was an expert qualified to render opinions regarding identification of a contaminant at a property, as well as the source of that contamination based on much of the same evidence presented at trial. 

On appeal from the remand hearing, the appellate court upheld the court’s determination that the LSRP was qualified to offer an expert opinion on the presence of gasoline at the site, but found that the record lacked evidence to support the reliability of the methodology chosen by the LSRP. The Court emphasized that in determining the admissibility of scientific expert testimony in a civil case, trial courts must utilize a “methodology-based test for reliability” similar to the standard set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 

Specifically, the LSRP did not cite to a single scientific resource, article, journal, publication, test, or study supporting the reliability of the chosen methodology used to identify gasoline as a contaminant. The LSRP offered only conclusory assertions that “various literature” supported his claims, which is insufficient to establish a reliable methodology. The Court concluded that the LSRP failed to apply a widely accepted method of testing and the methodology used was unsupported by any scientifically-based authority. Therefore, the Appellate Division found that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding the plaintiff had sustained her burden of establishing the reliability of her expert’s methodology.

Overall, the reliability, and ultimate admissibility, of an expert’s methodology depends on that expert’s ability to identify the sources upon which they rely and how others in the field practice the methodology.