AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 2011, upon consideration of the motion in limine (Doc. 38) to preclude the report and testimony of Darl V. Bell, M.D. ("Dr. Bell") concerning plaintiff Stephen Bieber's ("Mr. Bieber") work life expectancy, filed by defendant Eastern Industries, Inc., wherein Eastern Industries claims that Dr. Bell provides no medical or scientific basis for his opinion that Mr. Bieber has a work life expectancy of only five years (id. ¶¶ 4, 9, 10), and asserts that the opinion should be excluded as unsupported speculation,*fn1 and it appearing that the admissibility of expert testimony is a question of law for the court and expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable, Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 2d 630, 633 (M.D. Pa. 2009), and the court noting that its inquiry must focus on the principles and methodology utilized by the expert, not the conclusions he or she generates, see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993); In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717, 744 (3d Cir. 1994), and the court finding that "Rule 702 embraces a 'liberal policy of admissibility,' pursuant to which it is preferable to admit any evidence that may assist the trier of fact," Arlington Indus., Inc., 658 F. Supp. 2d at 633-34 (citing Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 520 F.3d 237, 243 (3d Cir. 2008)); Kannankeril v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 128 F.3d 802, 806 (3d Cir. 1997), but that subjective belief, and unsupported speculation do not satisfy the standard for admissibility of expert opinions, Kannankeril, 128 F.3d at 807, and the court concluding that Dr. Bell's testimony is relevant, and reliable and not based upon subjective beliefs or unsupported speculation,*fn2 see FED. R. EVID. 702, it is hereby ORDERED that Eastern Industries' motion in limine (Doc. 38) to preclude the report and testimony of Dr. Bell concerning plaintiff's work life expectancy is DENIED.