Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Myers, 411 S.W.2d 710, 713 (Tex. 1966). This rule applies whether the opinion is expressed in testimony or in a medical record, as the need to avoid opinions based on speculation and conjecture is identical in both situatio stimony are unreliable, an expert will not be permitted to base an opinion on that data because any opinion drawn from that data is likewise unreliable.” Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 714 (Tex.1997). Expert testimony is unreliable if “there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713, 727 (Tex.1998) (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146, 118 S.Ct. 512, 519, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997)). “We are not required ... to ) (<HOLDING>). Mims testified that it is common for doctors
holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding plaintiffs experts opinion on causation because while expert plainly had greater knowledge of medicine generally than lay person he did not have specialized knowledge on precise subject of causation holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable 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 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