With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that his experts meet the standard of reliability required of expert scientific testimony pursuant to the Alberico factors. See Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72, 145 N.M. 451, 200 P.3d 104 (“We will not search the record for facts, arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments.”). {27} It was Mr. Firstenberg’s burden, in the district court, to show that his experts, including his treating physician, Dr. Elliott, were qualified to present scientific expert testimony as to the cause of his EMS symptoms. See Parkhill, 2010-NMCA-110, ¶ 20 (stating that a treating physician must be qualified pursuant to the Alberico factors in order to present scientific expert testimony as to the external causation of the patient’s symptoms); id. ¶ 54 (Vigil, J., specially concurring) (<HOLDING>). The district court, having reviewed the

A: recognizing burden
B: holding that the burden of laying the proper foundation for the admission of the expert testimony is on the party offering the expert and admissibility must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence
C: recognizing that it is the proponents burden to demonstrate the admissibility of expert scientific testimony
D: holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law
C.