a particular illness. The first several victims of a new toxic tort should not be barred from having their day in court simply because the medical literature, which will eventually show the connection between the victims’ condition and the toxic substance, has not yet been completed. If a properly qualified medical expert performs a reliable differential diagnosis through which, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, all other possible causes of the victims' condition can be eliminated, leaving only the toxic substance as the cause, a causation opinion based on that differential diagnosis should be admitted. Turner v. Iowa Fire Equip. Co., 229 F.3d 1202, 1209 (8th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 262 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Hollander v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.,
holding that differential diagnosis rendered expert opinion on causation sufficiently reliable for admission holding that animal studies can be a proper foundation for an experts opinion but that those opinions must be sufficiently supported by the animal studies on which they purport to rely holding that alj properly rejected opinions based on invalid objective studies holding that published studies published articles case reports and the experts own clinical and research experience constituted sufficient reliable scientific data upon which an expert may base conclusion holding that a reliable differential diagnosis alone may provide a valid foundation for a causation opinion even when no epidemiological studies peerreviewed published studies animal studies or laboratory data are offered in support of the opinion