Mahmoud Agha, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Valerie M. Feiner and Barbara A. Delillo, Defendants-Respondents, and Laura…

Summary

The Supreme Court held that an out‑of‑court MRI report prepared by a non‑testifying radiologist cannot be admitted as substantive proof of a disc herniation through testimony of treating physicians who did not interpret the MRI, and that a limiting instruction under N.J.R.E. 105 is required in such circumstances. Because the trial judge erred in refusing the instruction, the Court reversed the Appellate Division’s dismissal and remanded for a new trial.