Tag: premises liability

The District Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert Dr. Millet. Though Dr. Millet did not examine the Plaintiff and made some factual assumptions, the Court found his methodology of reviewing medical records combined with his experience was sufficiently reliable under Daubert. The Court held disputes over the basis for an expert’s opinion should affect the weight assigned, not admissibility. Shaky but admissible testimony should be attacked through cross-examination and contrary evidence, not exclusion.