The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a non-physician expert was qualified to testify regarding medical cause of a worker’s injury. In Clark v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 179 N.J. 318, 845 A.2d 578 (2004), the Court held that a non-physician research chemist was qualified to testify regarding the medical cause of a workers injury. The Plaintiff in Clark developed an infection after a cut on his finger was exposed to a certain chemical. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that it was an error to permit the chemist to testify regarding medical causation, since this opinion was beyond the scope of the expert’s qualifications. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, finding that the admissibility of expert testimony depends on the facts and on the expert’s qualifications. The Court stated, “More particularly, the expert must be sufficiently qualified by education, knowledge, training and experience in the specific field of science. He likewise ‘must possess a demonstrated professional capability to assess the scientific significance of the underlying data and information, to apply the scientific methodology, and to explain the basis for the opinion reached.'” In applying that standard the Supreme Court found that the chemists’s education, experience and research qualified him to address the subject of the effect of the chemical on human skin. While this was not a case involving a brain injury, its significance is obvious. Often, defendants will assert in a traumatic brain injury case that a neuropsychologist is not qualified to provide expert testimony on issues such as diagnosis, causation or prognosis, because the neuropsychologist is not a physician. This Supreme Court decision re-enforces the Appellate Division decision in Adamson, which held that a neuropsychologist could give expert an opinion if he/she had the requisite education, experience and qualifications.