In overturning a $6.7 million jury verdict, the Ninth Circuit recently reversed the decision of the Montana U.S. District Court excluding hedonic damages testimony from the defendant's damages expert in a wrongful death case. The admission of the testimony of the plaintiff's expert on hedonic damages as "reliable testimony" after a Daubert challenge to its admissibility did not require a finding that the defense expert's testimony was "unreliable" - it should have been admitted and it was for the trier of fact to resolve the experts' differences. Dorn v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., No. 03-35071 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2005) (Kleinfeld, Callahan, & Bertelsman, JJ.). (The Hawaii Supreme Court has excluded expert testimony on hedonic damages from the state courts, but the Hawaii federal courts may not.)