Although the Court has a “gatekeeping role” with respect to the admissibility of expert testimony, “the evaluation of expert testimony is generally left to juries.” Pride v. BIC Corp., 218 F.3d 566, 577 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597-98); see also W. Tenn. Chptr. of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 300 F.Supp.2d 600, 605 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) (“The Court's role, at this stage, as outlined by Daubert and developed throughout the Federal Rules of Evidence, is to be the gatekeeper of evidence, not the weigher of evidence.”)

, ” district courts should admit it, as “the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.” W. Tenn. Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 300 F.Supp.2d 600, 602 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) (citations omitted).

So long as the proffered testimony "is properly grounded, well-reasoned, and not speculative," district courts should admit it, for "the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule." W. Tenn. Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 300 F. Supp. 2d 600, 602 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) (citations omitted). District courts must also be careful not to weigh one party's expert testimony against the other party's expert testimony, Jahn, 233 F.3d at 391, as the focus "must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate."

Finally, the proponent of the evidence has the burden of establishing that all of the pertinent admissibility requirements are met by a preponderance of the evidence. See Fed.R.Evid. 104(a); see also Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-76, 107 S. Ct. 2775, 97 L. Ed. 2d 144 (1987); Smelser, 105 F.3d at 303; West Tenn. Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 300 F. Supp. 2d 600, 602-03 (W.D. Tenn. 2004). STMC contends that Dr. Markowitz is not qualified to proffer an expert opinion regarding the standard of care required in a hospital with respect to policies and procedures concerning the removal of epidural catheters.