fatal gaps in an expert’s analysis or assertions that are simply incorrect.” Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897, 912 (Tex.2004). Here, Dr. Mims testified that he is a board certified neurosurgeon and has been practicing for over twenty years. As a neurosurgeon, Mims, treats back injuries. Mims participated in both of Burke’s back surgeries, and testified that he has performed the same types of surgeries many times on other patients. Specifically, Mims testified that he has performed Burke’s first surgery about 1500 times, and the second surgery about 150 times. Mims took a medical history from Burke and examined him on multiple occasions. The record therefore includes evidence that Burke’s injury was within Mims’s realm of expertise. Cf. Gammill, 972 S.W.2d at 719 (<HOLDING>); Broders v. Heise, 924 S.W.2d 148, 149
holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of mechanical engineer in products liability case involving automobile because expert did not have specific experience regarding subject matter of lawsuit holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for district court to allow a mechanical engineer to give expert testimony about a machine with which the engineer had no design experience