the patient presented, the opinion constitutes competent evidence when coupled with confirming medical evidence such as the results of medical tests and examination. LMC asserts that Burke’s statements are incredible because he first went to a doctor for his back pain three months after the accident at LMC, but consistently reported to his doctors that he had been experiencing back pain for about nine months. Burke testified at trial that he is not very good at remembering exact dates, and had no reason to think that his doctors needed the precise date his injury occurred. In any event, Burke’s inability to recall the exact date on which he was injured does not make his eventual statement to Mims regarding the source of his injury inherently unreliable. See Keo, 76 S.W.3d at 734-35 (<HOLDING>). It was up to the jury to determine whether
holding an experts testimony unreliable because he did not consider alternative causes holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable holding experts failure to explain how various factors affected his calculations rendered opinion unreliable