where formation of an opinion on a subject requires knowledge, information, or skill beyond what is possessed by the ordinary juror.' ”) (quoting Commonwealth v. Carter, 403 Pa.Super. 615, 589 A.2d 1133, 1134(1991)). The Welding Companies specifically contend Donoughe was wrongly decided and encourage this Court en banc to overrule that panel decision. We decline to do so, except to the extent it treats favorably a plaintiff’s expert causation testimony based upon the any-exposure theory. Donoughe, 936 A.2d at 57, 64. Moving forward, Donoughe shall not be cited with approval to the extent that it provides or implies that the any-exposure theory of specific causation is admissible in an asbestos action. 17 . The doctrine is not without exception. See, e.g., DGS, 898 A.2d at 601 n. 10 (<HOLDING>) (citing Davis v. Berwind Corp., 547 Pa. 260,
holding that under  1b13a1b and 2d11b1 a defendant may be held accountable for reasonably foreseeable weapons possession by a codefendant holding a manufacturer strictly liable in tort for injury to plaintiff caused by defective power tool recognizing that a manufacturer may be held strictly liable for subsequent changes to an otherwise safe product where such alterations are reasonably foreseeable holding that an alien may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future holding that trial counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to anticipate changes in law