relevant and useful information in the field of human toxicology. Likewise, in vitro tests provide useful information about metabolic processes at a cellular level, and may supplement existing animal and human data.”); Caraker v. Sandoz Pharms. Corp., 172 F.Supp.2d 1046, 1050 (S.D.Ill.2001) ("[A]n overwhelming amount of case reports of a temporal proximity between a very specific drug and a very specific adverse event might ... be enough to make a general causation conclusion sufficiently reliable.”); see also, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 475 (Fed. Judicial Ctr. Ed., 2d ed. 2002) ("[case reports] may be carefully considered in light of other information available, including toxicological data.”). 6 . See Hardyman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 243 F.3d 255, 261-67 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Milward v. Acuity Specialty Prods. Grp., 639
holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony 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 lower court abused its discretion in excluding plaintiffs expert where experts opinion was based on a differential diagnosis rather than epidemiologic evidence 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 differential diagnosis rendered expert opinion on causation sufficiently reliable for admission