With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". under Daubert district court's decision to exclude treating physician’s testimony that exposure to paint solvent caused injury); Turner v. Iowa Fire Equip. Co., 229 F.3d 1202, 1207 (8th Cir.2000) (treating physician's opinion on causation subjected to same standards of scientific reliability that govern expert opinions of physicians hired solely for litigation). Note that other courts have refused to apply Daubert in this fashion. See, e.g., Rogers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 2000 WL 1337185, *4 (Fed.Cl.2000) (noting that Third and Fourth Circuits admit treating physician's testimony under Dau-bert even when unsupported by scientific studies). 28 . Dekerlegand v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2000 WL 1772651, *1 (E.D.La.2000) (citing Patel v. Gayes, 984 F.2d 214, 218 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>)). 29 . Id. 30 . Miller ex rel. Miller v.

A: recognizing under fre 702 that there is no clear line dividing testimony based on scientific knowledge from testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge holding that a single flexible test for reliability applies to all expert testimony
B: holding doctor is not expert if testimony is based on observations during course of treatment not developed in anticipation of litigation and based on personal knowledge
C: holding that daubert applies not only to testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge
D: holding that the trial court had erred by excluding the expert testimony of a doctor
B.