of his experts) in a timely manner and, consequently, his testimony, which included references to Jones’s claims against Central Baptist Hospital and Lexington Manor, should have been excluded. We assign no merit to Essie’s complaints relative to Hattwick’s testimony. As there are no precise standards for qualification of an expert, it has long been that the decision as to qualifications of a witness as an expert rests within the discretion of the trial court. Any lack of specialized training goes only to the weight, not to the competency, of the evidence. See Arndale v. 31, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) (refusing to extend new exclusionary rule to state convictions that had become final); and Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U.S. 358, 53 S.Ct. 145, 77 L.Ed. 360 (1932) (<HOLDING>). In James B. Beam Distilling Co., 111 S.Ct. at
holding antiwaiver provision of securities laws does not prevent enforcement of contract provision choosing english forum holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law holding federal law does not prevent a state from choosing between prospective operation of its decision and that of relation backward recognizing similarities between illinois and federal law on relation back holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief