With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a medical degree “is not enough to qualify [a doctor] to give an opinion on every conceivable medical question.” Fuller points out that this caveat is especially relevant here where Fagelson could not point to a single piece of medical literature that says glue fumes cause throat polyps. Finally, it disputes that the method Fagelson used to come to his medical conclusion, “differential etiology,” qualifies as scientific under Daubert. We are unpersuaded. Fagelson is an experienced medical doctor, who is certified by the American Board of Otolaryngology and has practiced in the specialty of ears, nose and throat since 1966. We find his background sufficient to permit his expert testimony on a throat ailment and its causes. See, e.g., Carroll v. Morgan, 17 F.3d 787, 790 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Hopkins v. Dow Corning Corp., 33 F.3d 1116,

A: holding that the district court properly admitted expert testimony under daubert that was based on inter alia the doctors clinical experience and review of the medical records
B: holding that a doctor was qualified under daubert to give an expert opinion on standard of medical care based on thirty years of experience as a practicing boardcertified cardiologist and his review of the medical records
C: holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury
D: holding that where a treating doctor is called to give an expert opinion on the standard of care that doctor is properly labeled an expert witness and must be disclosed to the other party along with other experts
B.