context: With regard to the defendant's second claim involving whether or not Dr. Kathryn Edminston is allowed to express her opinion about the risks associated with breast cancer in terms of statistical rates of recurrence over her lifetime, it should be noted that discussions of life expectancy, survival rate and treatment options are not usually considered to be outside the realm of a doctor's expertise.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that generally qualified experts do not require a sub-specialty in order to testify to things within their expertise
citation_a.sentence: See also Commonwealth v. Rice, 441 Mass. 291 (holding that generally qualified experts do not require a sub-specialty in order to testify to things within their expertise).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 165 F.R.D. 31, 33
citation_b.parenthetical: issues of diagnosis, prognosis and causation are matters considered within the normal scope of the patient's care and treatment
citation_b.sentence: Salas v. United States, 165 F.R.D. 31, 33 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) (issues of diagnosis, prognosis and causation are matters considered within the normal scope of the patient’s care and treatment); LaMere v. NY State Office for the Aging, 223 F.R.D. 85, 90 (treating physician can express “an opinion as to the cause of any medical condition present in a patient, the diagnosis, the prognosis and the extent of the disability”) (citing Zanowic v. Ashcroft, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3857, 2002 WL 373229, at *3); Cella v. United States, 825 F.Sup. 1383, 1395-96 (N.D.Ind. 1991); Owens-Corning Fiberglas v. Watson, 243 Va. 128, 139-40 (1992).