Dr. Nitzkin contends that Dr. Nagaldinne should have ordered an MRI for Plaintiff. Defendants further claim that Dr. Nitzkin’s opinions are unreliable because he lacks familiarity with the type of medicine relevant to Plaintiffs claims. Defendants also maintain that Dr. Nitzkin’s opinion is unreliable because his report is based upon the position that Plaintiff was telling the truth and Dr. Nagaldinne and his medical records were not. Defendants contend that Dr. Nitzkin’s report is improperly based upon a credibility determination, which is improper for expert testimony. The Court denies Defendants’ Motions to Exclude Dr. Nitzkin’s testimony. The Court finds that Dr. Nitzkin’s testimony is not beyond the scope of his expertise. Cf. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 254 F.3d at 715 (<HOLDING>). The Court finds that Dr. Nitzkin’s experience
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify holding that the trial court improperly allowed a hydrologist to testify regarding safe warehousing practices where he lacked the education employment or other practical experiences to testify as an expert holding that an expert is not competent to testify as to statutory interpretation holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify