who did not exhibit a typical reaction to the procedure are likely to have been sexually abused constituted the only foundation for the existence of the facts necessary to the support of her stated opinion. Here, Ms. Shulmaris opinion that was based on facts not in evidence permitted her to express “ ‘unstated and perhaps unwarranted factual assumptions concerning the event.’ ” Young-Chin v. City of Homestead, 597 So.2d 879, 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (quoting Nat Harrison Assocs., Inc. v. Byrd, 256 So.2d 50, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)). Because Ms. Shulmaris opinion lacked a proper factual basis, the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted her expert opinion that K.D.’s reaction to the procedure was suggestive of sexual abuse. See Stano v. State, 473 So.2d 1282, 1287 (Fla.1985) (<HOLDING>); Schindler Elevator Corp., 895 So.2d at
holding that when an experts opinion regarding the relevant market is not supported by sufficient facts or when the record contradicts or renders the opinion unreasonable it cannot support a jurys verdict holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion 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 it is not the courts role to decide whether an experts opinion is correct holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others