perceived as having performed deficiently. On direct appeal, this Court rejected a claim that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying Lance’s request for additional funds for expert assistance, concluding that “Lance’s request for the contested funds [had been] too unspecific, uncertain, and conclu-sory” to require the granting of additional funds. Lance, supra, 275 Ga. at 13-14 (2). Although this Court’s comments, on the surface, might suggest that trial counsel necessarily performed deficiently in making his request, upon closer examination we conclude that he did not. Instead, we conclude that trial counsel’s request for funds appeared weak simply because there was no compelling reason for those funds to be granted. See Roseboro, supra, 258 Ga. at 40-41 (3) (c) and (d) (<HOLDING>). Lance complains that trial counsel failed to
holding that the district court properly admitted expert testimony under daubert that was based on inter alia the doctors clinical experience and review of the medical records holding that a request for funds for expert testimony must show inter alia that the testimony is crucial and is subject to varying expert opinions holding inter alia that expert testimony was not required to prove damages for emotional distress in an abuse of process claim holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive holding expert testimony remedies speculation by the court