F.3d 257, 262 (4th Cir. 1999) (stating that differential diagnosis “has widespread acceptance in the medical community, has been subject to peer review, and does not frequently lead to incorrect results”) (citation omitted); Heller, supra, 167 F.3d at 154-55 (noting that “differential diagnosis consists of a testable hypothesis, has been peer reviewed, contains standards for controlling its operation, is generally accepted, and is used outside of the judicial context”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Several state courts also have accepted differential diagnosis as a reliable form of expert testimony. See, e.g., Carlson v. Okerstrom, 267 Neb. 397, 675 N.W.2d 89, 105-07 (2004) (finding rehable differential diagnosis testimony admissible); Easum v. Miller, 92 P.3d 794, 804 (Wyo.2004) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because of the widespread
holding doctors differential diagnosis testimony admissible holding future dangerousness expert testimony to be admissible holding ehildvictims testimony at pretrial investigation admissible under residual exception in addition to doctors testimony under medical treatment exception holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors