condition, or to perform the procedure, that is the basis for the claim or action; or . . . a specialist or subspecialist recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties or the American Osteopathic Association who is board certified in the same specialty or subspecialty.’136 The Buck Court then explained the process by which a court determines the qualification of a proposed expert: Under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41, the first inquiry must be whether a physician is a specialist or general practitioner. If the physician is a specialist, then the second inquiry must be whether the treatment that is the basis of the malpractice action ‘involves’ the physician’s specialty. When the treatment ‘involves’ the physician’s specialty the equivalency requirements apply, otherwise the specialist is subject to the same affidavit requirements as if he were a general practitioner.137 134. Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377, 389 (2011) (citing N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(a), (b)). 135. Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377, 389 (2011). 136. Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377, 389 (2011) (emphasis added). 137. Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377, 391 (2011). Significantly, the Court added: A physician may practice in more than one specialty, and the treatment involved may fall within that physician’s multiple specialty areas. In that case, an affidavit of merit from a physician specializing in either area will suffice.138 This comment suggested that experts in one specialty could testify in cases involving other specialities. The issue was revisited less than a year later by the Supreme Court in Nicholas v. Mynster.139 The plaintiff in Nicholas was brought to the hospital suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning. The plaintiff came under the care of the defendants, Dr. Mynster, who
condition, or to perform the procedure, that is the basis for the claim or action; or . . . a specialist or subspecialist recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties or the American Osteopathic Association who is board certified in the same specialty or subspecialty.’136 The Buck Court then explained the process by which a court determines the qualification of a proposed expert: Under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41, the first inquiry must be whether a physician is a specialist or general practitioner. If the physician is a specialist, then the second inquiry must be whether the treatment that is the basis of the malpractice action ‘involves’ the physician’s specialty. When the treatment ‘involves’ the physician’s specialty the equivalency requirements apply, otherwise the specialist is subject to the same affidavit requirements as if he were a general practitioner.137 134. Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377, 389 (2011) (citing N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(a), (b)). 135. Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377, 389 (2011). 136. Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377, 389 (2011) (emphasis added). 137. Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377, 391 (2011). Significantly, the Court added: A physician may practice in more than one specialty, and the treatment involved may fall within that physician’s multiple specialty areas. In that case, an affidavit of merit from a physician specializing in either area will suffice.138 This comment suggested that experts in one specialty could testify in cases involving other specialities. The issue was revisited less than a year later by the Supreme Court in Nicholas v. Mynster.139 The plaintiff in Nicholas was brought to the hospital suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning. The plaintiff came under the care of the defendants, Dr. Mynster, who