to certain aspects of Talmadge Village. In the first report, Hoff made no comment upon the role of Sullivan, the architect. In his second report, Hoff noted several deficiencies in the architectural design in terms of the subcode. The trial court granted Sullivan’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that plaintiffs claim against the firm was essentially one for architectural malpractice and thus could not proceed in the absence of an opinion by a licensed architect. Taylor v. DeLosso, 319 N.J.Super. 174, 179, 725 A.2d 51 (App.Div.1999) (“In a professional negligence case, the standard of care must normally be established by expert testimony”). Not all experts, however, must possess a professional license. Landrigan v. Celotex Corp., 127 N.J. 404, 421-22, 605 A.2d 1079 (1992) (<HOLDING>); State v. One Marlin Rifle, 319 N.J.Super.
holding that statements made by a child who was brought to an emergency room by her mother were admissible when the child knew a doctor would conduct a medical exam the physician explained he was a doctor and he asked questions about medical history and performed a physical examination of the child holding that because the doctor who submitted an expert report did not demonstrate knowledge of cancer treatment he was not qualified to offer an opinion that an earlier diagnosis could have produced a better outcome for the plaintiff holding that an epidemiologist who was not a medical doctor could testify that decedents colon cancer was causally related to his exposure to asbestos holding that conduct by the plaintiff contributing to his illness or medical condition and furnishing the occasion for medical treatment is not a defense to medical malpractice where a doctor negligently treated a man who had attempted to commit suicide holding the report of doctor who was not present to testify and whose deposition had not been taken was properly excluded in action by insured against insurer on accident policy