should be admitted under Daubert, explaining that all of the following elements must be established prior to the presentation of expert testimony to the jury: (1) the expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) the methodology by which the expert reaches conclusions is sufficiently reliable as determined by the sort of inquiry mandated in Daubert; and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact, through the application of scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. 400 F.3d 1286, 1291-92 (11th Cir.2005). The party seeking to introduce the expert witness bears the burden of satisfying these criteria. Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). With respect to the qualification of an
holding that the burden of laying the proper foundation for the admission of the expert testimony is on the party offering the expert and admissibility must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive recognizing that it is the proponents burden to demonstrate the admissibility of expert scientific testimony