instructions seriously and inappropriately undermined the value of the exhibit. None of the witnesses who testified concerning the 1992 evaluation form were qualified as experts in human behavior, including motivation or initiative. Thus, they were testifying as lay persons when they were asked about Ms. Overstreet’s initiative during her 1992 externship. As lay persons, they could only give an opinion concerning Ms. Overstreet’s initiative if their opinion was “rationally based” on their own perceptions. See Tenn.R.Evid. 701(a)(1). Thus, their opinions concerning Ms. Overstreet’s initiative must have been based on their personal knowledge. See Tenn.R.Evid. 602; see also In re Estate of Elam, 738 S.W.2d 169, 172 (Tenn.1987); Bills v. Lindsay, 909 S.W.2d 434, 439 (Tenn.Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>); Edwards v. State, 540 S.W.2d 641, 648
holding that alj properly rejected opinions based on invalid objective studies holding that balancing must be based on factual findings holding in five separate opinions that  1983 claim based on persons arrest cannot be brought under substantive due process where more specific constitutional provision  fourth amendment  applies holding that lay opinions concerning the soundness of a persons mind must be based on conversations appearances and conduct holding that the proscribed treatment must be based on a persons sex and not their sexual affiliations