With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the plaintiffs burden on the ultimate issue at trial.” -(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Wright v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1105, 1107 (8th Cir.1996) (“We do not require a mathematically precise table equating levels of exposure with levels of harm, but there must be evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude that a defendant’s emission has probably caused a particular plaintiff the kind of harm of which he or she complains.... ”); Henricksen v. ConocoPhillips Co., 605 F.Supp.2d 1142, 1157 (E.D.Wash.2009) (“[I]t is not always necessary for a plaintiff to quantify exposure levels precisely or use the dose-response relationship, provided that whatever methods an expert uses to establish causation are generally accepted d 248, 252-53 (1st Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Although Judge Workman expressed concern that

A: holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible
B: holding that lower court abused its discretion in excluding plaintiffs expert where experts opinion was based on a differential diagnosis rather than epidemiologic evidence
C: holding that differential diagnosis rendered expert opinion on causation sufficiently reliable for admission
D: 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
C.