survival rate and treatment options are not usually considered to be outside the realm of a doctor’s expertise. Salas v. United States, 165 F.R.D. 31, 33 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) (issues of diagnosis, prognosis and causation are matters considered within the normal scope of the patient’s care and treatment); LaMere v. NY State Office for the Aging, 223 F.R.D. 85, 90 (treating physician can express “an opinion as to the cause of any medical condition present in a patient, the diagnosis, the prognosis and the extent of the disability”) (citing Zanowic v. Ashcroft, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3857, 2002 WL 373229, at *3); Cella v. United States, 825 F.Sup. 1383, 1395-96 (N.D.Ind. 1991); Owens-Corning Fiberglas v. Watson, 243 Va. 128, 139-40 (1992). See also Commonwealth v. Rice, 441 Mass. 291 (<HOLDING>). The basis for the specific opinion offered by
holding beneficiaries under a will are qualified to testify to execution holding that njeither the plaintiff nor fellow crewmen are qualified to testify as design experts holding that although the court must defer to an agencys expertise it must do so only to the extent that the agency utilizes rather than ignores the analysis of its experts holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify holding that generally qualified experts do not require a subspecialty in order to testify to things within their expertise