An appeal before the New Jersey Supreme Court over expert testimony in suits concerning the acne drug Accutane is seen by many as a chance to revise the state's standard for admitting such evidence.

Lawyers for drugmaker Hoffmann-La Roche have asked the court to consider whether a trial judge exceeded his authority by excluding two expert witnesses for the plaintiffs based on a conclusion that their views lacked support in the scientific community. That decision was later overturned by the Appellate Division, which reinstated 2,100 plaintiffs' suits based on its finding that the judge below went beyond his role as gatekeeper.

The Accutane case has drawn amicus curiae briefs from several dozen parties who say the case provides an opportunity for the court to clarify New Jersey's expert witness stand. Some asked the court to adopt the standard from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court ruling governing admission of expert testimony. The Daubert standard refers to a series of guidelines for courts to use when evaluating scientific expert testimony. New Jersey, along with New York and Pennsylvania, are among nine states that have not adopted the Daubert standard.