for example, when the law is overridden or misapplied. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Flor, 606 Pa. 384, 414, 998 A.2d 606, 623 (2010). In terns of the applicable law, expert testimony is generally admissible if: the witness has ,a specialized knowledge beyond that possessed by the average layperson; such knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; and the expert’s methodology is generally accepted in the relevant field. See Pa.R.E. 702. Under longstanding Pennsylvania precedent pertaining tó jury trials, however, determining witness credibility is exclusively the function of jurors, and expert witnesses are specifically prohibited from invading this province. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. O’Searo, 466 Pa. 224, 229, 352 A.2d 30, 32 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Upon our review, we hold that an expert
holding that this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative fact finder who heard the testimony and was in a position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses because evidence is weighed by the administrative agency and not by the courts holding that the issue of witness credibility is within the knowledge of the average layperson and must be determined solely by the finder of fact holding that the weight and credibility to be given to the opinions of expert witnesses is uniquely within the province of the fact finder  in this instance the trial court citation omitted holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court holding that the issue of proximate causation involves application of law to fact which should be left to the fact finder subject to limited review